The Transition of a Typical Frontier 

with illustrations from 

The Life of Henry Hastings Sibley, 

Fur Trader, First Delegate in Congress from Minnesota Territory, 

and Pirst Governor of the State of Minnesota 



A THESIS 

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



WILSON PORTER SHORTRIDGE, M.A. 



IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE 
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 



1919 



5- 

The Transition of a Typical Frontier 

with illustrations from / / >• 



The Life of Henry Hastings Sibley, ^ lS(t> 

Fur Trader, First Delegate in Congress from Minnesota Territory, 
and First Governor of the State of Minnesota 



A THESIS 

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS 
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 



WILSON PORTER SHORTRIDGE, M.A. 



IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE 
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 



1919 



F 46^ 



. VJ 



^55 



GEORGE BANTA PUBLISHING COMPANY 
MENASHA, WI& 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
RECEIVED 

JUL 261922 

DOCUMENTS DIViSIO 



PREFACE 

This account of frontier transition is a study in the history 
of the West. If the West be thought of as a period rather than 
a place, then the study of a limited area which passed through 
the successive stages in the evolution of society on the frontier 
should be typical of what was repeated over and over again in 
the conquest and settlement of the continent. And, in the 
same way, if a study be made of an individual who lived through 
and participated in, or at least witnessed, the various steps 
vivid illustrations of the significant features of the westward 
movement may be found. In the second and third quarters 
of the nineteenth century that part of the upper Mississippi 
Valley which became Minnesota passed through the evolution 
of society from frontier to statehood, and the most prominent 
man in that region during the period was Henry Hastings 
Sibley, fur trader, first delegate in Congress from Minnesota 
Territory, and first governor of the State of Minnesota. This 
region and this individual have been selected, therefore, as 
types in this study of frontier transition. 

The Sibley family furnishes a good illustration of the migra- 
tion of the New England element of our population. The story 
of this family takes its beginning in Old England, going back 
through the centuries almost, if not quite, to the time of the 
Norman Conquest. After picking up the threads of the story 
in England, certain members of the family will be followed 
across the Atlantic to the shores of New England, to what 
may be called the first American West. From New England 
the story will follow along the trail that leads to the first real 
American West, the region beyond the Alleghanies, first to 
Marietta and then to Detroit. In particular, this study will 
follow the fortunes of a younger son of the Sibley family in 
Detroit from his boyhood home to the Indian country of the 
upper Mississippi, where he lived through the successive 

III 



IV PREFACE 

changes from fur traders' frontier, through territorial days and 
into statehood. Three different times did representatives of 
this family migrate to a newer American West and live through 
this evolution of society. Constant attention has been given 
in this study to the phases of development that were typical 
of what has taken place in different parts of the country. The 
problems confronting the settlers in new areas were more or 
less similar, and this makes possible a type study of this nature. 
The story of this family also illustrates the fact that, as a 
general rule, each area was settled by people who were born in 
an adjoining region, or an older region, to the East. Some- 
times certain individuals or certain classes drifted along with 
the frontier, but the more ambitious pioneers went farther 
west to get a start in life, settled down, and waited for the later 
waves of civilization to overtake them. It is a very significant 
fact in the history of the West that one could go as a young man 
into a new region, as Sibley went into the upper Mississippi 
country, and live to see that region a settled area with a civiliza- 
tion and conveniences equal to those found in the older com- 
munities in the East, and it is still more striking that this 
change should have taken place in time for that same individual 
to be able to enjoy for many years the conveniences of city 
life. By centering our attention on a given region during the 
lifetime of a single individual it is possible, therefore, to see the 
various changes that came in rapid succession in the history 
of the West. 

The material upon which this study is based is indicated in 
the chapter on bibliography, but special mention might be made 
of the Sibley and Ramsey Papers. This material consists of 
several thousand papers, chiefly correspondence, of the two men 
most prominent in the making of Minnesota. Sibley carefully 
preserved letters and papers from the time he first came to 
Minnesota and, after his death, most of these were turned over 
to the Minnesota Historical Society. They contain much 
valuable material on the early history of Minnesota and cover 
the period from 1 830 to 1 890. Since most of the correspondence 



PREFACE 



mentioned in this study has been taken from the Sibley Papers 
it will be assumed, unless direct reference is given to the 
contrary, that the material in question is found in them. The 
Ramsey Papers, while not so extensive as the Sibley Papers, 
also contain much valuable material, particularly on Indian re- 
lations and early politics. Many of Sibley's letters are found 
here. The Minnesota Historical Society has a very valuable 
collection of newspapers published in Minnesota, dating from 
the very year that the territory was organized, and these files 
have been used in gathering material for this study. 

Since this work has grown out of the author's study of the 
history of the West, several friends have aided either directly 
or indirectly in its preparation. The author's interest in the 
history of the West was first aroused in the classes and seminary 
of Professor Frederick J. Turner, at the University of Wisconsin 
in 1909 and 1910, and the work was later continued under 
Professor Solon J. Buck, at the University of Minnesota. 
Especially the author desires to acknowledge his deep indebt- 
edness to Professor Buck for the encouragement and valuable 
assistance which he freely gave at all stages in the preparation 
and publication of this work. Every chapter in the original 
dissertation was gone over with Professor Buck, and his criti- 
cisms and suggestions helped the author to avoid many errors 
which otherwise would have appeared. It is not assumed, 
however, that even so mistakes did not creep in, and for all of 
these the author assumes full responsibility. Acknowledg- 
ments are also due and are gladly given to the several 
assistants in the Minnesota Historical Society, and especially 
to those in the manuscript department, for the help which they 
gave. Entire justice in making acknowledgments would not 
be done without a statement as to the interest manifested in 
the author's work by Professor August C. Krey, of the Univer- 
sity of Minnesota, whose encouragement helped the author 
over many hard places. 

W. P. S. 

University of Louisville 
January 21, 1922 



CONTENTS 

Chapter i. A Type of the New England Element in the West i 

Chapter 2. The Fur Traders' Frontier ii 

Chapter 3. The Pioneer Days on the Upper Mississippi 27 

Chapter 4. The Making of a New Territory 35 

Chapter 5. Territorial Politics, 1 848-1 852 6i 

Chapter 6. The Needs of a New Territory 79 

Chapter 7. The Indian Problem on the Frontier 91 

Chapter 8. Territorial Growth and the Organization of a State 120 

Chapter 9. The Advent of the Railroad to Minnesota 132 

Chapter 10. The Last Standof the Sioux Indians in Minnesota 146 

Chapter ii. Pioneer Dreams Come True 165 

Chapter 12. Bibliography 174 

LIST OF MAPS 

Fur trading posts along the upper Mississippi, 1826 14 

Minnesota Territory, 1 849 69 

Minnesota Territory, 1855 122 



CHAPTER 1 

A TYPE OF THE NEW ENGLAND ELEMENT IN 
THE WEST 

Soon after the close of the American Revolution New Eng- 
landers began the great migration across the Appalachian 
Mountains. Even before this time the expanding population 
had advanced northward into New York and Pennsylvania.^ 
All of these migrations were brought about from much the 
same causes and were carried out in much the same way. At 
about the time that the members of the Convention of 1787 
met and drew up the Constitution of the United States "in 
order to form a more perfect union" the foundation was being 
laid for a new state west of Pennsylvania, and this beginning 
was made by New Englanders. Each generation furnished 
pioneers for the settlement of another area farther west. From 
New York and Pennsylvania, as well as from New England 
itself, the New England element passed into Ohio, northern 
Indiana and Illinois, where it met the stream of population 
coming across the Ohio river from the southward. In these 
states institutions were modified but not controlled by the 
New England influence. In the next tier of states settled and 
admitted into the Union, however, the local institutions were 
suggestive of New England. Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and 
Minnesota were settled quite largely by New Englanders or 
by their descendants who had lived for a time at some settle- 
ment along the path of the westward march of population. 
The New England influence was strong enough in these states 
to control permanently the form of local institutions in spite 
of migration from other states and an unusually large number 
of foreign immigrants. It is possible, therefore, to select a 

'Lois Kimball Mathews, The Expansion of New England, Chapter VI. 

I 



2 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

typical New England family and follow its members into the 
West, thus illustrating how the migration took place and how 
institutions were transplanted. 

Henry Hastings Sibley, a pioneer on the Minnesota frontier, 
came from pure New England stock and may therefore be 
taken as a type of the New England element. The family 
history, on his father's side, goes back without a break in the 
story to the great Puritan emigration to Massachusetts, and 
careful genealogists have claimed to be able to trace it back to 
the time of the Norman Conquest. The name appears, with 
several different spellings, in many local records in England. 
In the time of Edward I the Sibleys were listed as owners of 
land in Kent, Oxford, and Suffolk. In the sixteenth century 
one John Sibley was mayor of St. Albans, and it is probably 
from him that the American Sibleys were descended. In the 
long struggle between king and parliament the Sibleys often 
divided, as many old English families did, some members 
favoring one side and other members the other. The second 
quarter of the seventeenth century was the time of the great 
Puritan emigration to America, and it was this movement that 
brought the Sibleys to the new world. The first individuals 
of the family to come to America seem to have been two broth- 
ers, John and Richard, who came to Salem, possibly in 1629, 
certainly before 1634.2 

John Sibley, the ancestor of the branch of the family under 
consideration, took the freeman's oath on September 3, 1634, 
and his name is to be found in the list of the members of the 
First Church of Salem. He was selectman at Salem in 1636 
and held a similar office at Manchester in 1645 and again in 
1658. He died in 1661. Joseph Sibley, the third son of John 
Sibley, was born in 1655. He was a landowner and husband- 
man and engaged to some extent in fishing, but this is about 
all that is known about him. He bought land in Sutton, 
Massachusetts, and three of his six sons were among the 

* William A. Benedict and Hiram A. Tracy, History of the Town of Sutton, 718. Also West, 
The Ancestry, Life and Times of Henry Hastings Sibley, 1-17. 



NEW ENGLAND ELEMENT IN THE WEST 3 

founders of this new town of Sutton. His other three sons 
later settled in the same place, and already the westward migra- 
tion of the family had begun. 

The settlement of Sutton was typical of the New England 
method of founding new towns. By the beginning of Queen 
Anne's War most of eastern Massachusetts had been settled 
and much land had been taken up in the Connecticut valley, 
while between these places there were only a few isolated areas 
of settlement. Because the land was not so good in this section 
and also because it was more exposed to Indians raids it had 
been passed over by the earlier settlers. People began to come 
into the region after the close of hostilities in 1713 and it was 
here that the new town of Sutton was founded.^ The land was 
first purchased from some Nipmug Indians in 1704 by the 
"Proprietors of Sutton" and was described as "a tract of waste 
lands eight miles square, lying between the Towns of Mendon, 
Worcester, New Oxford, Sherburne and Marlborough, embrac- 
ing within its limits an Indian reservation of four miles square 
called Hassanimisco." The proprietors then applied to the 
Governor and General Assembly for the confirmation of the 
grant and for permission to establish the town. The petition 
was granted in 1704 on condition that thirty famihes and a 
minister should be settled within seven years after the close of 
the war. The war closed in 1713, but it was not until 1716 
that the first families settled in the town. By the end of 1717 
the thirty families were there and among them were Joseph, 
Jonathan, and John Sibley, sons of the above mentioned 
Joseph Sibley. The second Joseph Sibley (born 1684) was the 
Sutton ancestor of Henry Hastings Sibley. For three genera- 
tions this branch of the family was identified with the history 
of Sutton, taking at different times a more or less important 
part in the political and social life of the town. This second 
Joseph Sibley had a son named Jonathan (born 17 18) who was 
the father of Reuben Sibley. The latter was the father of 

' Lois Kimball Mathews, The Expansion of New England, 78-79. Also map, 70. 



4 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Solomon Sibley, the representative of the family who went to 
Marietta and finally to Detroit/ 

Solomon Sibley was born in Sutton, Massachusetts, October 
5, 1769. He received a good elementary education and studied 
law under William Hastings, of Boston. Feeling the influence 
of the movement of population to the region beyond the 
mountains he set his face westward in 1795, went to Marietta, 
and henceforth identified himself with the Old Northwest. 
After a year at Marietta he moved to Cincinnati. While 
practicing law here, he and Judge Burnet made a trip to attend 
the summer session of court at Detroit, swimming streams and 
sleeping on the ground, their provisions being carried on a 
pack horse. Sibley was favorably impressed with Detroit and 
decided to make it his future home. He was the first settler 
to go to Detroit after the evacuation of that post by the 
British in 1796 as provided in Jay's Treaty.^ He engaged 
in such practice of the law as existed in a frontier community, 
and in 1799 was elected as the first member to represent Wayne 
county in the first territorial legislature of the Northwest 
Territory which met at Chillicothe. In 1802 he introduced 
into the territorial legislature the bill to incorporate Detroit. 
In 1806 he was mayor of Detroit by appointment of Governor 
Hull and in 18 15, when Detroit regained control of its local 
affairs, he was one of the five trustees and was chosen as the 
first president of the town board. In 18 17 he was a commis- 
sioner with General Lewis Cass to treat with the Ottawa, 
Chippewa, and Pottawatomie Indians for the cession of lands 
in the present State of Michigan.^ From 1820 to 1823 he was 
the delegate to Congress from the Territory of Michigan, and 
in 1821 he became a trustee of the University of Michigan, a 
pioneer "State" University. From 1824 to 1837, the close of 
the territorial period, he was chief justice of the supreme 

^Benedict and Tracy, History of Sutton, 9-12; 15; 18. 

^Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, 6:488. Also Mathews, The Expansion of 
New England, 230. 

* This cession embraced lands bounded on the north by Grand river, on the west by Lake 
Michigan, and on the south by the present state line, except a small parcel of land in the south- 
west corner of the State. Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections, 30:178; 18:693; 26:284. 



NEV/ ENGLAND ELEMENT IN THE WEST 5 

court of Michigan Territory.^ Such, in brief, was the political 
Hfe of the father of Henry Hastings Sibley. This sketch shows 
that he was a leader in his community and played an important 
part in the making of the territory and State of Michigan as 
was the case with his son in a newer West, the region which 
became Minnesota. There are some interesting parallels in the 
lives of father and son in these two frontier regions. Both 
served in territorial legislatures, both were delegate in Congress 
from a territory, and both were prominent in the building of a 
State University. 

In 1802 Solomon Sibley married Sarah Whipple Sproat at 
Marietta and took his bride by way of the Ohio river to Pitts- 
burg, thence to Lake Erie, and then by boat to Detroit. Sarah 
Whipple Sproat was a very remarkable woman whose family 
history was no less honorable and distinguished than that of 
the Sibleys. Born in Providence, Rhode Island, January 28, 
1782, her family represents, on her mother's side, another 
stream of influence which helped make Marietta, for that 
place was not entirely a Massachusetts settlement. Colonel 
Ebenezer Sproat, her father, was born in Middleborough, 
Massachusetts, in 1752, and became a surveyor by profession. 
He entered the Continental army as a captain and rose to the 
rank of colonel. After the war he resided for a time at Provi- 
dence, Rhode Island, where he met and later married Catherine 
Whipple, the daughter of Commodore Abraham Whipple. In 
1786 when Congress ordered the first surveys of land west of the 
Ohio river, the so-called "seven ranges," Colonel Sproat was 
one of the surveyors who began the work which on account of 
Indian hostilities had to be given up the following year. When 
the Ohio Company was organized, Sproat again came west as 
a surveyor of lands in the region of Marietta. He was joined 
by his family in 1789 and, until his death in 1805, made his 
home in the new territory. As sheriff of the county, he opened 
the first court ever held in the region which became Ohio.^ 

^7^;</, 35:448-449. 

* Hildreth, Biographical and Historical Memoirs of the Early Pioneer Settlers of Ohio, 230. 
Hereafter this book will be referred to as Pioneer Settlers of Ohio. 



6 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Commodore Whipple played a distinguished part in the 
Revolutionary War, and always claimed the honor of having 
fired the first gun at the British on the sea under the authority 
of Congress. He was descended from John Whipple, one of the 
original proprietors of Providence Plantation and an associate 
of Roger Williams. Before the war, Abraham Whipple com- 
manded a vessel engaged in the West India trade. Like other 
traders of his time he was highly incensed at the efforts of Great 
Britian to put an end to smuggling, and tradition has it that 
he was the leader of the party of Americans that burned the 
British ship "Gaspee" in 1772.^ After an honorable career in 
the navy during the Revolutionary War, he resided at Provi- 
dence, Rhode Island, where his daughter married Colonel 
Sproat. When Marietta was founded, Whipple moved there 
with his family. In 1801 when the vessel "St. Clair" was built 
at Marietta to take a cargo of products to the West Indies, 
Whipple commanded the vessel on its trip down the Ohio and 
Mississippi to New Orleans, and thence to Havana. He disposed 
of the cargo of pork and flour, returned to Philadelphia with a 
return cargo, sold vessel and cargo, and returned by land to 
Marietta. This was the first rigged vessel ever built on the 
Ohio, and Whipple had had the honor of "conducting her to 
the ocean." 

The marriage of Solomon Sibley to Sarah Whipple Sproat 
was, therefore, not only the union of two important individuals, 
but also of two important streams of New England influence 
which poured into the Northwest during this period. With 

' At the time of the Gaspee Affair the identity of those taking part in it was kept from the 
British. When measures had advanced, however, to an open break, the matter was no longer 
kept secret and a British captain, hearing of Whipple's part in it, sent him the following com- 
munication: 

"You, Abraham Whipple, on the 17th of June 1772, burned his majesty's vessel, 
the Gaspee, and I will hang you at the yard arm. 

James Wallace. " 
To this note Whipple replied: 

"To Sir James Wallace; 

Sir: Always catch a man before you hang him. 

Abraham Whipple. " 
Hildreth, Pioneer Settlers of Ohio, 159. 



NEW ENGLAND ELEMENT IN THE WEST 7 

the blood of such pioneers coursing in his veins it is little wonder 
that Henry Hastings Sibley felt the call of the West and pushed 
on to a new region on the advancing frontier. 

Henry Hastings Sibley was born in Detroit February 20, 
181 1, and grew up in a frontier environment. The region 
afforded him in his boyhood a good training in field sports and 
wood lore which was destined to be of great use to him in his 
own pioneer work. He was educated in the school and academy 
at Detroit and had two years' instruction in Greek and Latin 
under an Episcopal clergyman. His parents intended that he 
should be a lawyer and he spent two years in the study of the 
law, but this study and the prospects of a legal career in a 
settled community did not appeal to the young man who was 
far more interested in a wild life on the frontier.^" 

With the consent of his parents young Sibley gave up his 
legal studies and left home on June 20, 1828, going first to 
Sault Ste. Marie where he secured employment in the sutler's 
store of John Hulbert. A few months later, he was in charge 
of the business affairs of Mrs. Johnson, the mother-in-law of 
Henry L. Schoolcraft, the Indian agent at Sault Ste. Marie. 
Mrs. Johnson's husband had been a fur trader and here Sibley 
became familiar with the Indian trade. In the spring of 1830 
Sibley secured employment as a clerk with the American Fur 
Company, at Mackinac.^* As his work with the fur company 
was not to begin until June, Sibley made a trip to Chicago by 
way of Lake Michigan. In his autobiography he gave the 
following description of Chicago at that time: "I found on the 
present site of the Queen City of the Lakes a stockade con- 
structed for defense against the Indians, but abandoned, and 
perhaps a half dozen dwellings occupied by the Beaubien and 
other families, and a single store stocked with a small but 
varied assortment of goods and provisions. A more uninviting 

^"Sibley was admitted to the bar in Minnesota in 1858, the year in which he became 
Governor. His certificate is among the Sibley Papers (Misc). 

" There is a recommendation of Sibley signed by the President, Cashier and Directors of 
the Bank of Michigan to the American Fur Company in the Sibley Papers, April 28, 1830. 



8 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

place could hardly be conceived of. Sand here, there, every- 
where, with an occasional shrub to relieve the monotony of 
the landscape. Little did I dream that I would live to see on 
that desolate coast a magnificient city of more than a half- 
million of inhabitants, almost rivalling metropolitan New 
York in wealth and splendor."^^ 

For the next four years Sibley held this position as clerk, ^^ 
the duties of which were very exacting during the busy season 
of the year. It was the duty of the clerks to inspect and list 
all of the furs brought in by the traders who at that time 
reported each spring at Machinac. Settlement was then made 
with the traders on the basis of the credit extended to them the 
previous summer. After the year's business was thus closed 
for each trader on the books of the fur company a new supply 
was issued and a new account opened up. The invoice was 
made out by the clerks and recorded in the books of the com- 
pany. After all the traders had thus been fitted out and had 
departed for the Indian country the furs which had been 
brought in were sorted and packed for shipment to New York 
or London. From May or June until August the life of a 
clerk was a very busy one, but during the other part of the 
year there was time for recreation and study if one were so 
disposed and could secure the necessary books. Sibley seems 
to have utilized his time quite well in this respect. It was at 
this time that Sibley held his first political office, that of justice 
of the peace, the commission of which he received when he 
was twenty-one years old. During the year 1833-34 Sibley 
was supply purchasing agent for the fur company and travelled 
through Ohio and Pennsylvania buying for the company sup- 
plies used in the Indian trade. 

1' West, Ancestry, Life and Times of Henry Hastings Sibley, 48-49, quoting Sibley's Auto- 
biography. This Autobiography was never published and is not now among the Sibley Papers. 
West had access to it and we know of it mainly through the numerous quotations from it in his 
Life of Sibley. 

''The American Fur Company was anxious to get young men of ability and promise to 
enter its employ as clerks and it advanced those who made good. Sibley is a type of young man 
like they wanted, and his later business career is an illustration of how they would advance those 
who proved themselves worthy. 



NEW ENGLAND ELEMENT IN THE WEST 9 

In 1834 the American Fur Company was re-organized, 
John Jacob Astor retiring from the Company and Ramsey 
Crooks becoming president. At this time Sibley found himself 
at a turning point in his career. He received an offer of a 
position as cashier of a bank in Detroit and a similar offer from 
a bank in Huron, and had almost decided to accept one of these 
offers when the way was opened for him to become a partner in 
the fur company. Two of his friends, Hercules L. Dousman 
and Joseph Rolette, Sr., had been engaged in the fur trade 
with headquarters at Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin. They now 
proposed to Sibley that the three of them make an agreement 
with the fur company by which the company would furnish 
the money or advance the goods and the men give their time 
in extending operations on the upper Mississippi among the 
Sioux. It was to be Sibley's duty to establish headquarters 
on the St. Peters river (now called the Minnesota river) and 
have charge of all the operations in that region. The two 
friends pictured the wild life on the frontier in such glowing 
terms that Sibley was induced to decline the offers as cashier 
and to enter the fur trade. Sibley left Machinac in the latter part 
of October, 1834, and started for the upper Mississippi country. 
He went by way of Green Bay and the Fox-Wisconsin route 
and five days later arrived at Prairie du Chien. Remaining 
here only a few days, he continued his journey on horseback 
"through an unexplored and uninhabited wilderness" for a 
distance of three hundred miles to Mendota, a traders settle- 
ment at the junction of the St. Peters and Mississippi rivers. 

Two years after his arrival at Mendota, Sibley built a stone 
house which he used as bachelor quarters until his marriage 
in 1843. After Sibley moved to St. Paul, in 1862, this house 
fell into decay, but was finally restored by the Daughters of 
the American Revolution and is known today as the "Sibley 
House." It has been refurnished with many articles used 
by the Sibleys and is open to visitors. Facts connected with 
his residence at Mendota furnish a good illustration of the 
rapidity with which the westward movement passed a given 



lO TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

place. Concerning his residence here in different pohtical 
jurisdictions, Sibley, on a later occasion, wrote: "It may seem 
paradoxical, but it is nevertheless true, that I was successively 
a citizen of Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota Terri- 
tories without changing my residence at Mendota. The juris- 
diction of the first named terminated when Wisconsin was 
organized in 1836, and in turn Iowa extended her sway over the 
west of the Mississippi in 1838. When the latter was admitted 
as a State with very much diminished area, the country lying 
outside of the State boundaries was left without any govern- 
ment until the establishment of the Minnesota territorial 
organization placed us where we are."" Visitors to the "Sibley 
House" are shown the room where the Sibley children were 
born in the different political jurisdictions. In the short space 
of fourteen years four territories had exercised nominal jurisdic- 
tion over the place, and from 1846 to 1848 the region west of 
the Mississippi had been without territorial organization. 
Rapid changes of this sort constituted one of the significant 
features of the westward movement. 

" Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days of Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 3:265. 



CHAPTER II 

THE FUR TRADERS' FRONTIER 

As was true in most other sections, it was the fur trade that 
brought the upper Mississippi country into commercial rela- 
tions with the civilized world. The presence of Indians on the 
frontier hastened rather than retarded the settlement of new 
areas by white men, and among the influences making for 
settlement the fur trade had a very important relative position. 
Traders as well as explorers and missionaries went far in ad- 
vance of the other waves of white settlement, learned the 
resources of the country, and, the two latter classes especially, 
made them known to the on-coming tide of immigrants. In a 
comparatively short time, the fur traders' frontier would pass a 
given region and the knowledge of the country that had been 
acquired enabled the pioneers in the next wave of settlement to 
select the most favorable locations. Not that the fur traders 
encouraged the other classes to come in; on the contrary, it 
was to the interest of the fur trader to keep the other classes 
of whites out of a new region. The westward march of white 
settlers could not be stopped, however, and it was recognized 
that the fur traders' frontier was a comparatively short period 
in the development of a region. With favorable geographic 
conditions, an abundance of fur bearing animals, and the pres- 
ence of Indian tribes it was only a question of time until the 
fur traders' frontier would advance along the upper Mississippi 
and its tributaries into the region which was destined to be 
Minnesota. Fur traders came into the region from two direc- 
tions; some came among the Chippewas by way of Lake Supe- 
rior, and some came among the Sioux by way of the Mississippi. 
In the French and British periods of the fur trade in this region 
the traders for the most part came in by way of Lake Superior, 

II 



12 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

although as early as 1774 Peter Pond, a Connecticut Yankee, 
had come up the Mississippi to trade with the Indians. This 
study deals principally with the American fur traders' frontier 
which came up the Mississippi for it was this movement that 
brought Henry Hastings Sibley to Minnesota. Since Sibley 
was associated with the American Fur Company it is chiefly 
its organization and activities that will be described. 

The American Fur Company was chartered under the 
laws of New York in 1808 "for the purpose of carrying on 
extensive trade with the native Indian inhabitants of America."^ 
John Jacob Astor was the founder of the company which gradu- 
ally extended its field of operations until its activities spread to 
the Pacific coast. The history of the company falls into two 
distinct periods with the date 1834 as the dividing line. 

It is a well known fact that the British controlled the fur 
trade of the Northwest until after the War of 1812, the British 
garrison leaving Prairie du Chien in 1815.^ In the following 
year a law was passed by Congress which prohibited foreign 
traders from operating within the territory of the United 
States.^ This marked the withdrawal of the British companies 
from the upper Mississippi country, and made possible the re- 
markable success of the American Fur Company. Many of 
the traders and voyageurs who had served under the British 
fur companies were taken over by the American Fur Company 
when it came into the region and this fact greatly facilitated 
the gaining of a practical monopoly of the Indian trade in 
Minnesota. 

Between 18 19, the date of the founding of the military post 
which was soon called Fort Snelling, and 1834, when Sibley 
came to Minnesota, several trading posts were established 
within the Hmits of what later became Minnesota Territory. 
The principal post was at New Hope (also called St. Peter and 

' New York Private Laws, 1808, p. 160. 

* Stevens, "Organization of the British Fur Trade," in Mississippi Valley Historical 
Review, 3:172-202. 

* United States, Statutes at Large, 3:332. 



FUR TRADERS FRONTIER I3 

later Mendota), just across the St. Peters river from Fort 
Snelling. In 1826 Major Taliaferro, the Indian Agent at that 
point, listed seventeen posts in the upper Mississippi country/ 
Most of these belonged to the American Fur Company and 
were under the control of Joseph Rolette, Sr., whose headquar- 
ters were at Prairie du Chien. The American Fur Company 
made it a practice to form partnerships with men of proved 
ability as fur traders by which the company furnished the 
goods to the trader on credit, the trader gave his time, and the 
profits were divided between them. It was in this sense that 
the American Fur Company operated in Minnesota. Credit 
was thus extended to Rolette and Dousman on the books of the 
American Fur Company simply as one of their "outfits." The 
accounts were closed each year with each "outfit" and the 
balance paid to, or the deficit charged against, the "outfit." 
The division of the country that was assigned to Rolette 
extended from Dubuque's lead mines up the Mississippi to a 
point above the Falls of St. Anthony and up the St. Peters 
river to its source. Rolette brought his goods each summer 
from Mackinac, by way of the Fox-Wisconsin route, to Prairie 
du Chien where the goods were put up in lots for each trading 



* These posts were located as follows: 

Fort Adams, Lac Qui Parle Columbia Fur Co. 

Fort Washington, Lac Travers " " " 

Fort Columbia, Upper Sand Hills Cheyenne American Fur Co. 

Fort Biddle, Crow Island American Fur Co. 

Fort Rush, at mouth of Chippewa " " " 

Fort Union, Traverse des Sioux Columbia Fur Co. 

Fort Factory, near Fort Snelling American Fur Co. 

Fort Barbour, Falls of St. Croix Columbia Fur Co. 

Fort Calhoun, Leech Lake American Fur Co. 

Fort Bolivar, Leaf Lake Columbia Fur Co. 

Fort Pike, Red Lake American Fur Co. 

Fort Rice, Devil's Lake " " " 

Fort Greene, Big Stone Lake " " " 

Fort Southard, Forks of Red Cedar, " " " 

Fort Lewis, Little Rapids (St. Peters river) " " " 

Fort Confederation, second forks of the Des Moines 

river Columbia Fur Co. 

Fort Benton, Sandy Lake American Fur Co. 

Taliaferro to Alexis Bailly, April 2, 1826, in Sibley Papers. Also Neill, "Fort Snelling from 1819 
to 1 840," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 2:113-1 14. For location of these posts see accom- 
panying map. 



14 



TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 



post and sent up the Mississippi in charge of clerks hired for 
the purpose. These clerks, or subordinate traders, had charge 
of the various posts and were not heard from until the following 
spring when they returned with the furs and peltries. The 




War '&mkti ^Kntm '^ 

iijifi^r GM^isiidsipfii. 
Fur Ti-ddinj Ports In l?iS- 



clerks or traders, as the case might be, gave the goods out to 
the Indians on credit. The Indians then went out on their 
hunts and returned in the spring for settlement with the trader. 
The goods were sold to the Indians at a profit of ioo% on most 
articles, and even more on lead, powder, knives, and similar 
articles, where the profit was sometimes 300% or 400%, or 
even higher. In the spring, the Indians settled according to 
their success on the chase, some paying all their debts, some 
only part, and some none at all. Credits were extended to the 



FUR TRADERS FRONTIER I5 

Indians in proportion to their ability as hunters and their 
honesty in making settlement.^ Since the goods were given 
out at such high prices the trader made a good profit even if 
he lost a considerable amount on poor debtors. An account 
was kept, however, of unpaid balances of the Indian debts and 
were invariably presented when Indian treaties were made.^ 

As has been previously related, Sibley came to the upper 
Mississippi country in 1834 as a partner in the American Fur 
Company, jointly with Rolette and Dousman. The country that 
had formerly been under Rolette was divided, and Sibley took 
charge of all the country from Lake Pepin to the Little Falls 
of the Mississippi, north and west to Pembina in the Red River 
valley; also all the valley of the St. Peters river and westward 
to the sources of the streams which flowed into the Missouri 
river. When Sibley made his first tour of inspection of the 
posts under his charge, in 1835, ^^ found the following men in 
charge of the most important posts: Joseph R. Brown at Lac 
Traverse; Joseph Renville at Lac Qui Parle; Louis Provencalle 
at Traverse des Sioux; Jean B. Faribault at Little Rapids; 
Joseph Laframboise at Coteau de Prairie at Lake of the Two 
Woods; and Alexander Faribault at Cannon river. Other 
prominent traders in the region at the time were Alexis Bailly, 
Norman W. Kittson, James Wells, Hazen Mooers, Philander 
Prescott, and Francois Labathe.^ These men had been in the 
region for some years and some of them were destined to play 
a large part in the making of Minnesota. The story of the 
lives of these men is, to a very large extent, the history of this 
phase of the fur trade before Sibley came into the region. 

Jean B. Faribault was one of the older men then engaged in 
the Indian trade in Minnesota. He was born in 1774 and 

^ Thomas Forsyth to Lewis Cass, Secretary of War, quoted in Chittenden, American Fur 
Trade, 3:926-930. 

® "The American Fur Company ought to be satisfied with the Indians, for they have mon- 
opolized all the trade. They have monopolized the whole trade on the frontiers together with 
the Indian annuities, and everything an Indian has to sell, yet they claim a large amount for 
debts due them for non-payment of credits given the Indians at different periods." Forsyth to 
Cass, quoted in Chittenden, American Fur Trade, 3:930. See also Chapter VI below. 

' Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days in Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 3:245-248. 



l6 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

entered the fur trade in 1798 with the Northwest Fur Company. 
He first came to the St. Peters river in 1804. After ten years' 
experience with the Northwest Fur Company he began business 
for himself at Prairie du Chien, where he refused to take part 
in the War of 1812 against the United States. After the war 
and the withdrawal of the British influence from the North- 
west, he secured a supply of goods from Joseph Rolette, of the 
American Fur Company, and, henceforth, was one of their 
most reliable traders.^ 

Alexis Bailly, with whom Sibley made the trip from Prairie 
du Chien to Mendota in 1834, had been engaged in the fur 
trade since 1822. He was at New Hope (now Mendota) during 
most of this time and had considerable trouble with Major 
Taliaferro, the Indian Agent, over the use of liquor in the Indian 
trade. ^ In 1832 William Aitkin wrote to Sibley, who was then 
a clerk at Mackinac, that "Baillie's people" were their "worst 
neighbors" at Sandy Lake "after the Hudson Bay Company," 
and that Bailly was well supplied with liquor and had "a pre- 
dominant sway in the Indian trade."^° Bailly sold out his 
interests at Mendota to Sibley in 1835. 

Joseph R. Brown, a man whose name will be mentioned 
many times in this study, because he too was one of the makers 
of Minnesota, came into the region in 18 19 as a drummer boy 
with the detachment of soldiers under Colonel Leavenworth 
to build the military post that was soon called Fort Snelling. 
Leaving the army about 1825, he engaged in the Indian trade 
and early lumbering enterprises and became a typical product 
of the frontier. "A drummer boy, soldier, Indian trader, 
lumberman, pioneer speculator, founder of cities, legislator, 
politician, editor, inventor, his career, though it hardly com- 
menced till half his life had been wasted in the obscure soli- 
tudes of this far Northwestern wilderness, has been a very 
remarkable and characteristic one, not so much for what he 

* Sibley, "Memoir of J. B. Faribault," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 3:168. 
' Neill, "Fort Snelling from 1819 to 1840," Minnesota Historical Collection, 2:112, 
''Aitkin to Sibley, February 10, 1832. 



FUR TRADERS FRONTIER I7 

has achieved, as for the extraordinary versatility and capacity 
which he has displayed in every new situation. "^^ 

Most of these traders married Indian women and exercised 
considerable influence with the tribes into which they married. 
They were men who had personalities strong enough to enforce 
order among their subordinates and among the Indians with 
whom they traded, in a country where laws were practically 
unknown. Sibley always insisted that the old traders were a 
remarkable class of men who were much better than they were 
generally reputed to be. "Perhaps no body of men," he 
wrote, "have ever been so misunderstood and misrepresented. — 
They have not only been accused of all the evils and outrages 
that were the accompaniments of extreme frontier life, where 
law is unfelt and unknown, but they have been charged with 
fraud and villainy of every conceivable description. With too 
much self-respect to contradict charges so absurd and improb- 
able, and with an undue contempt for public opinion, it is 
not surprising that scarcely a voice has been raised, or a pen 
wielded in his behalf. There is an unwritten chapter yet to be 
contributed to the records of the Northwest, which will place 
the Indian trader in a proper light before the country, while it 
will not seek to extenuate either his defects or vices. "^^ Since 
the traders were a class of men distinct from other men in modes 
of thought and life they cannot justly be measured by the same 
standards which apply to men in civilized communities, and 
particularly to men of a later day. It must be said of them that 
while they generally had little education^^ they possessed re- 

" Whee'ock, "Memoir of Joseph R. Brown," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 3:21a. 
'^Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 

1:378-379- 

*' Sibley related the following story regarding the methods of keeping accounts by Louis 
Provencalle, one of his traders: "He kept his Indian credit books by hieroglyphics, having a 
peculiar figure for each article of merchandise, understood only by himself, and in marking down 
peltries received from the Indians, he drew the form of the animal, the skin of which was to be 
represented. He also had a mode of indicating the names of his Indian debtors on his account 
books peculiar to himself" Sibley also illustrated the power of a trader over the Indians by 
relating how Provencalle saved his goods on one occasion when a band of Sioux threatened to 
pillage them. Provencalle "seized a fire brand and, holding it within a few inches of an open 
keg filled with gunpowder, he declared his determination to blow them and himself into the air 
if they seized upon a single article." It is needless to say that he was not further annoyed. 
Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :38i-382. 



l8 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

markable energy and honesty. "In fact the whole system of 
Indian trade was necessarily based upon the personal integrity 
of the employer and the employed. Generally speaking, the 
former resided hundreds or even thousands of miles distant 
from the place of trade, and he furnished large amounts of 
merchandise to his agent or clerk for which he held no security 
but his plighted faith. "^* The characteristic of honesty which 
the old traders displayed in their dealings with the employer 
did-not extend to rival traders. "There was a state of perpetual 
warfare existing between rival establishments in the Indian 
country, except in case of sickness or scarcity of provisions, 
when hostilities ceased for a time and the opposite party came 
to the rescue of those who were in distress and afforded every 
assistance possible. Such exhibitions of qualities so contra- 
dictory were characteristic of all the old class of Indian trad- 
ers. ^^ 

The voyageurSy composed entirely of French Canadians 
who were engaged in Montreal for a term of three years at 
regular wages, were of two classes, the "Mangeurs du lard" 
or pork-eaters, during their first three years in the West, and 
the "hivernants" or "winterers," composed of those who had 
passed the apprenticeship stage. The labor performed by these 
men in winter was excessively severe. They frequently carried 
packs weighing from fifty to one hundred pounds for days in 
succession in reaching Indian camps with goods or in returning 
with loads of furs. The most disobedient of the voyageurs, on 
their way out from Montreal, were sent to points on the Min- 
nesota river where the traders "had a reputation for sternness 
and severity towards their men,"^^ Sometimes the voyageurs 

'■* Some of the traders came from good families back farther east. "Many of the young men 
who sought employment with the fur companies were, like myself, more attracted to this wild 
region by a love of adventure and of the chase than by any prospect of pecuniary gain. There 
was always enough of danger, also, to give zest to extreme frontier life, and to counteract any 
tendency to en?iui. There were the perils of prairie fires and flood, from evil disposed savaged, 
and those inseparable from the hunt of wild beasts, such as the bear, the panther, and the buf- 
falo." Sibley, "Memoir of H. L. Dousman," in Minnesota Historical Collection, 3:195. 

'^ Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections 
I =380. 

^'Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days in Minnesota" in Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 2'MS''^47- 



FUR TRADERS FRONTIER I9 

tried to escape from the hardships by deserting, but in such 
cases they were hunted down and brought back. 

After Sibley came to Mendota, the traders in his division 
reported to him in the spring and received their goods from 
him instead of reporting at Prairie du Chien as had formerly 
been the case. The furs were then packed and shipped down 
the river to Prairie du Chien and on to Machinac. In other 
words, Sibley was the medium of communication between the 
individual trader and the fur company officials in the east. The 
amount of furs received from the Sioux Outfit (Sibley's divi- 
sion at Mendota) was enormous. ^^ 

An idea of the profits in the Indian trade, assuming that all 
the Indian debts were paid, may be formed from the table on 
page 20.^^ 



'^The following table, taken from Sibley Papers (Misc.) 1835, will show the prices of furs 
as well as the amount shipped out: 

289,388 rats $44,702 . 08 

2,588 kittens 51-36 

1,027 otters 5,135.00 

609 fishers 913 . 50 

2,330 minks 698 . 40 

462 martens 577 . 50 

2,01 1 coons 603 . 30 

100 bears 216.00 

24 bears (coverings for packs) : • 24.00 

63 cubs 94 • 50 

34 wolves 17. 00 

205 foxes I S3 • 75 

12 badgers 2.25 

3,243 deer skins 972 . 90 

225 beaver 900.00 

80 swan skins 80 . 00 

3 rabbits .38 

3 wild cats 1 . 00 

1,039 buffalo robes 4,156.00 

Total 159,298 . 92 

^^ Neill "Fort Snelling from 1819 to 1S40" in Minnesota Historical Collections, 2:131. The 
column showing gain % has been added to the table by the present writer. 



20 



TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 



St. Louis 
3 pt. blanket 


prices 
^3-25 


Minnesota prices 
60 rat skins ^12.00 


Net gain 
$ 8.75 


Gain % 
284% 


i>^ yd. Stroud 


2.75 


60 ' 


' " 12.00 


9.25 


336% 


I N. W. Gun 


6.50 


100 * 


* " 20.00 


13-50 


200% 


1 lb. lead 


.06 


2 ' 


' " .40 


•34 


566% 


1 lb, powder 


.28 


10 ' 


* " 2.00 


1.72 


614% 


1 tin kettle 


2.50 


60 ' 


' " 12.00 


9.50 


380% 


I knife 


.20 


4 


' " .80 


.60 


300% 


I looking glass 


.04 


4 


' " .80 


•76 


1900% 


1 lb. tobacco 


.12 


8 ' 


* " 1.60 


1.40 


1166% 



There was an additional profit for the fur company in the 
sale of the furs. In 1836, Sibley's buffalo robes, for which he 
paid $4.00 each in trade in Minnesota, were sold in Michigan 
for $6.00, thus making an additional profit of 50%, less trans- 
portation charges from Mendota to Machinac.^^ The rats, 
for which an average of about fifteen cents had been paid in 
trade in Minnesota, were sold for twenty cents, a profit of 
33}^%y less transportation charges. The profit on other furs 
varied, but their sale usually added a good profit to the com- 
pany's account. On the other hand, the furs from Minnesota 
sometimes got to market at an unfavorable time and had to be 
sold much lower than those prices, sometimes even at a loss. 

The fur trade in Minnesota was in its most flourishing 
condition in the years immediately preceding 1837. New trad- 
ing posts were established during this period, particularly in 
the region of the Red River of the North. 2" Prices of furs were 
higher in 1836 than they had been for years-^ and higher, in 

'' Ramsey Crooks to Sibley, September 14, 1836. 

^"Taliaferro to Sibley, July 22, 1836. 

^' "We have just learned the result of the London sales. All the Western Outfit skins sold 
better than for years past except bears which I fear continue to sell poorly. . . . Your rats are 
all sold, the ist brought 20 cents, the others in proportion. They will not improve." R. Crooks 
to Sibley, April 27, 1836. 



I t 



FUR TRADERS FRONTIER 21 

fact, than they were to be after 1837. Buffalo robes sold better 
than other furs in the London market, while otters, beaver, 
and rats did not sell as well in the European market as they did 
in America, "2 

There was no metallic money used in the fur trade at this 
time, the trade being carried on entirely by barter. The 
standard of value during the early period of the fur trade was 
a prime beaver called a "plus" by the French. In the later 
period the unit of value in Minnesota was the muskrat.^^ 

About the only thing to interfere with the fur trade during 
this period was the relations between the traders and the Indian 
Agent, Major Taliaferro, who said in a circular issued to the 
traders that most of them were disregarding the provisions in 
their bonds regarding the introduction of liquor into the Indian 
country. He threatened to withhold licences from the traders 
"whose creditors may hereafter obtain ardent spirits from any 
source and introduce the same within the limits of the agency."" 
There was also some trouble over the fact that the Sioux in the 
Lac qui Parle region were hostile to the Chippewas, contrary 
to their treaty. Major Taliaferro threatened to suspend all 
trade with the Sioux unless they ceased their hostility, and he 
directed Joseph Renville, the trader at that point, to bring to 
Fort Snelling all Sioux who had been hostile towards the Chip- 
pewas.^^ The traders were incensed at the high-handed methods 
of the Indian Agent, and Sibley lodged a complaint and pro- 
test with the department at Washington against Taliaferro's 
proposed suspension of the trade. Ramsey Crooks interested 
himself in the matter, but he did not believe that Taliaferro 
would actually suspend all trade with theSioux.^^ The trade 

^^ "Buffalo robes are above all others the surest of selling well and promptly. They have 
become an article of necessity." Ramsey Crooks to Sibley, September 14, 1836. 

" Eliason, "Beginnings of Banking in Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
12:671. 

" Circular Notice, August 1835, in Sibley Papers. 

"Taliaferro to Sibley, Dec. 8, 1835. 

'^"All your complaints against Maj. Taliaferro are doubtless well grounded, ... It is 
quite strange to me that he should annoy you as he does, for he wrote to me on the ist of last 
January in the most friendly manner complimenting you in the highest terms and concluded 
by saying that your word was sufficient to him for all your outfits. . . ." Crooks to Sibley, 
Apr. 27, 1836. 



22 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

was not suspended and after a time conditions on the frontier 
assumed their normal character. 

The year 1837 marked a turning point in the history of the 
fur trade in Minnesota. Up to this date all the lands within the 
limits of the future Minnesota Territory belonged to the 
Indians, except the military reserve at Fort Snelling. In 1837, 
however, a delegation of Sioux Chiefs was taken to Washington 
and a treaty was negotiated for the cession of lands east of the 
Mississippi. 2^ This treaty was made primarily to open up the 
pine forests of the St. Croix valley to the lumberman, the 
advance guard of the next wave of civilization. It was, of itself, 
a signal that the fur traders' frontier would soon be passing 
farther to the West. As has been shown, the fur trade in Min- 
nesota reached its peak of production about this time, and the 
year 1837 marks the beginning of the dechne. 

The Indians underwent a marked transformation when 
the white settlements, in their gradual but steady advance, 
made necessary the negotiation of the first treaties for the 
cession of lands. The Indians were not only demoralized by 
contact with the whites, but they ceased to rely upon their 
own efforts to support themselves and their families and came 
to depend more and more upon the annuities from the govern- 
ment. ^^ This was the second great transformation that came 
in the life-history of the Indian tribes. Before the fur traders' 
frontier touched a given tribe of Indians the red men supported 
themselves by agriculture or the chase, or by both; with the 
coming of the traders the Indians came to rely more and more 
upon the supplies which were brought into the Indian country 
by the traders and which could be obtained by the exchange 
of furs; with the negotiation of treaties for the cession of land 

^' Neill, "Fort Snelling from 1819 to 1840," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 2:132-133. 

^^ "The decay of the Dakotas in our midst may be dated from the time of their treaty in 
1837. . . . The policy which has been pursued to secure the lands of the Indian and then to 
offer him no inducement to improve his condition has been the bane of his race. Recourse to 
liquor and other evil habits are but the natural consequences of that system which drives him 
from his home, interferes with his habits of life, and regards him as an outcast from the land of 
his fathers, without holding out to him any promise for the future." Sibley, "Reminiscences 
Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :3i9. 



FUR TRADERS FRONTIER 23 

the Indians came to rely upon the annuities and less upon the 
collections of furs. This fact, together with the growing 
scarcity of fur-bearing animals in the region, brought about a 
decline in the fur trade. This does not mean that the total 
amount of trade carried on with the Indians necessarily de- 
creased. There is a distinction between the "fur trade" and the 
"Indian trade." After the government began to pay annuities, 
the Indians could pay for their goods partly in money, and thus 
the fur company began a retail business. The traders were 
certain to be on hand with supplies of goods at the time of the 
payment of annuities, and the Indians were not long in spending 
their money .^^ They found it necessary then to buy goods on 
credit from the traders until the next payment of annuities 
from the government, and these bills were not always paid in 
full. These balances were carried year after year by the 
traders as had been done in the days of the fur trade. It must 
not be supposed that this transformation was a sudden one; 
on the contrary, it was very gradual, the fur trade and the 
retail trade being carried on at the time by the fur company. 
In the years after 1837, however, the retail trade increased 
relatively. With the appearance of white men other than 
traders the retail trade naturally extended to them. When 
white settlement increased still more, the fur company under- 
took banking operations, making loans, cashing drafts brought 
into the region by prospective settlers, and selling exchange 
on the New York office to those who wished to send money out 
of the region. ^"^ This transformation of a fur trading enter- 
prise into a general mercantile and financial establishment is 
typical of the evolution of institutions in a frontier community. 
Another change that came over the fur company's methods 
after 1837 was the change of route of shipping goods into the 

^' In 1838 when the money was received under the Treaty of 1837, nineteen Indians 
(half-breeds) deposited $500 each with Sibley as trustee and traded the amount out in merchan- 
dise. These accounts extended over a period of years, some as late as 1847. Sibley kept an 
accurate account with each Indian and allowed him 6% interest on balances due each year. 
Sibley's Cash Book, 1838, in Library of Minnesota Historical Society. 

^^ Patchin, "The Development of Banking in Minnesota," in Minnesota History Bulletin, 
2:115-119. 



24 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

upper Mississippi country. It has already been shown that in 
the early days of the fur trade the goods were sent from New 
York to Mackinac, thence via Prairie du Chien to Mendota. 
In 1838 Sibley was purchasing his goods for the Indian trade 
through P. Chouteau & Company, of St. Louis. '^ At that time 
the goods were still sent by way of Albany and Buffalo, but by 
1840 the goods were coming by way of Philadelphia and Pitts- 
burg, by river to St. Louis and thence up the Mississippi to 
Mendota. *2 Sometimes, even, goods were shipped from New 
York to New Orleans and thence to St. Louis and to Mendota. 
A commission of 5% was paid Chouteau & Company for 
handling this business for Sibley's "Outfit" of the American 
Fur Company. This was the opening wedge for the St. Louis 
company, and in 1841 they began to secure furs from Minne- 
sota, thus challenging the monopoly of the American Fur 
Company. ^3 

Prices of furs declined after 1837, partly due no doubt to 
the financial crisis of that year, and the American Fur Company 
found itself in close financial straights for some years. ^^ But 
for the fact that Sibley's outfit was engaging more and more in 
retail business there would have been a corresponding change 
in his fortunes. The decHne in the price of otters and rats, the 

'^ "Invoice of Mdse. purchased in N. Y. by the American Fur Company and forwarded 
via Albany & Buffalo to Messrs. Pratte Chouteau & Co., St. Louis, to be by them forwarded to 
Mr. Henry H. Sibley, Fort Snelling, for Fort Snelling Outfit." Invoice Book, r8j8, in Minnesota 
Historical Society Library. 

^^ Invoice Book, 18^0. 

'^ Several letters are in the Sibley Papers regarding this change. The name "American 
Fur Company" was applied to Sibley's business for many years after the change was made to 
Chouteau & Co. 

'* "The Leipsic Fairs have a controlling influence in determining the value of Deerskins & 
Shipping Furs, and the result of the Fair last month was the worst that has been known for years . 
The prospects are most discouraging for the coming sales, which can not possibly be good; but 
we cannot tell how bad they will be." Crooks to Sibley, June 28, 1841. 



FUR TRADERS FRONTTEH !«; 



chief furs gathered at this time in Minnesota, made a consider- 
able difference in the total output of furs from the region.^ 

A comparison of the amount of furs collected by a given 
trader at different periods may throw some light on the trend 
of the fur trade, particularly if he was in about the same region 
at the different periods. Jean B. Faribault's account for furs 
collected in 1835 ^^^ 16,722.54; in 1839 it was $2,900; in 1843 
it was $2,009.66; and in 1847 it was only $1,511.75. On the 
other hand, the total amount of credit extended to him did 
not so materially change during the period. In 1835, when 
there was no money in circulation among the Indians, the 
amount of his furs was approximately the amount of his trade. 
In 1843 ^^ total credit extended to him was $3,931.22 and in 
1847 it was $6,439.54, as compared with a return in furs of 
$2,009.66 and $1,511.75 respectively for those years. This 
difference represents the growth in retail trade, plus balances 
being carried against the Indians. In 1842-43 the total amount 
of credit extended to certain men in the Indian trade by 
Sibley's outfit was $24,780.34 and the amount of furs collected 
was $13,215.01, leaving a balance of $11,565.33 which was 
paid partly in cash and in part was carried as an unpaid balance 
against the Indians, to be brought up later at the time of making 
treaties. The total amount of business as shown by the books 
of the fur company for 1842-43 was $52,862.91 and the total 
amount, as far as it is possible to separate the accounts, ex- 
tended to fur traders was $39,809.98 The difference between 

"The following table will indicate the comparative prices: 

1835 1843 

Otters $500 ?3-75 

Foxes 75 62 

Martens 1.25 1.25 

Coons 30 37^ 

Minks 30 30 

Rats 15 08 

Fishers i . 50 i • 5° 

It will be observed that the price of coon skins was higher in 1843 ^^^'^ '" 1^35 ^"'^ *^** 
martens, minks, and fishers were the same price as in 1835. Reference to the table given above 
in this chapter will show, however, that martens, fishers, and coons were not as important in the 
fur trade in Minnesota as rats and otters. With no change in prices except otters and rats, the 
total output in 1835 at the prices of 1843 would have been 121,530.91 lower than it was. These 
figures are taken from Sibley's Daily Memorandum Book, Jan. 2, 1843. 



26 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

these amounts, $13,052.93, represents the probable amount of 
retail trade for that year. For the year 1846-47 the total 
credit business was $70,870.52 and the part that can be dis- 
tinguished as extended to fur traders was $51,184.38, leaving 
balance of $19,686.14 as the probable amount of retail trade 
for the year. The largest amount of credit extended to any 
single fur trader in 1846-47 was $11,907.98 extended to N. W. 
Kittson who was stationed in the region of the Red River of 
the North and was thus keeping up, in a way, with the fur 
traders' frontier in its westward march.^^ 

After Sibley's entrance upon his public career in 1848, his 
business interests at Mendota were looked after by his brother, 
Fred Sibley, while Dr. C. W. Borup, who had been engaged in 
the trade farther up the Mississippi, came to St. Paul and took 
charge of the business there belonging to Sibley's concern. 
Borup was an individual who looked out primarily for his own 
interests, in characteristic frontier fashion, and tried to dis- 
credit Sibley with Chouteau & Company in order to supplant 
him in the Indian trade. As a result of the work of this man, 
together with other influences, Sibley found himself embar- 
rassed in his political aspirations because of his connection 
with the fur company and, as a result, he closed up his connec- 
tion with the fur trade in 1853, soon after his retirement from 
Congress.'^ 

* These figures are taken from the books of the fur company as kept by Sibley, which are 
to be found in the library of the Minnesota Historical Society. 
" See Chapter V, below. 



CHAPTER III 
THE PIONEER DAYS ON THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI 

The second wave of civilization to come up the Mississippi 
made its appearance in the last years of the decade of the thir- 
ties. The Treaty of 1837 with the Indians was both a result 
and a cause of this movement of population. The extensive 
pine forests on the St. Croix and the upper Mississippi rivers 
were sure to attract lumbermen in time, and some pine logs 
were cut on the St. Croix even before the treaty was negoti- 
ated. Joseph R. Brown, the pioneer in so many enterprises, 
seems to have been the man who made the beginning in the 
industry that was for many years the chief source of wealth in 
Minnesota after the passing of the fur traders' frontier.^ The 
year 1837, which was the turning point in the fur trade, marked 
the real beginning of lumbering on the St. Croix. 

Although the treaty was made with the Indians, the lands 
ceded to the federal government were not surveyed and sold 
for many years. The early lumbermen, as well as the pioneer 
farmers and even town promoters, were, therefore, squatters 
upon the public domain, the latter two classes relying upon 
their land claim associations to secure their title to the lands. 
A small technicality like not having a legal title to the lands 
did not in the least interfere with the on-coming wave of pioneer 
lumbermen. The timber was there and the settlements down 
the river needed lumber; this was sufficient justification for 
cutting it. Moreover, these pioneers reasoned that what 
belonged to the people collectively belonged to them individu- 
ally as "citizens inheriting an interest in the government," and 

^ Joseph R. Brown "is said to have brought dowa the first raft of pine lumber that ever 
descended the St. Croix river." Sibley "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, I •.^iy^'^^. Also Durant, "Lumbering and Steamboating on the St. Croix," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:648. By 1850 lumbering rivaled the fur trade as the 
dominant interest in Minnesota. Robinson, Economic History of Agriculture in Minnesota, 39. 

27 



28 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

that they were rendering valuable service to the government, 
as squatters always reasoned, by creating a value and demand 
for the public lands.^ 

The first real "outfit" on the St. Croix was established in 
1837 by John Boyce at the mouth of the Kanabec or Snake 
river.^ In the same year Franklin Steele built a cabin at the 
Falls of the St. Croix, and four other parties soon followed his 
example. Saw mills were set up at St. Croix Falls and Marine 
Mills in 1838, at Stillwater in 1843, ^^ Osceola, Wisconsin, in 
1845, and at Lakeland and Areola in 1848. The first lumber 
placed on the market came from Marine Mills in the summer 
of 1839. It has been estimated that perhaps one-third of the 
logs cut on the St. Croix, and later those from the upper 
Mississippi, were rafted down the river to Rock Island and 
Moline, Illinois, and even to St. Louis. Much of the lumber 
sawed in the region was also made up into rafts and taken to 
market in the same manner.* 

In 1837 Sibley, Warren, and Aitkin made a contract with 
the St. Croix and Sauk River bands of Chippewas by which 
permission was secured from the Indians to cut timber for a 
period of ten years on the lands adjacent to the Snake and St. 
Croix rivers, to a distance of one mile on the east side and three 
miles on the west side of the rivers. The Indians agreed not to 
molest the contractors or their lumbermen, and also agreed 
not to permit anyone else to cut timber in the region. In 
return for this concession, the contractors agreed to furnish 
the following articles to the Indians: "500 lbs. of gun powder, 
1250 lbs. of lead, 300 lbs. of tobacco, 2 bbls. flour, i bbl. pork, 
I bbl. salt, ^ bbl. of tallow, 45 bu. corn, 5 pieces of Indian 

* "The first operators in the pine districts of Wisconsin and Minnesota were pioneers who 
ventured into this new and unexplored country for the purpose of cutting timber for a livelihood, 
not with the spirit of speculation. They opened the country for settlement and cultivation, 
creating a value for the public domain. ... It was generally conceded to be a benefit to the 
government." Folsom, "History of Lumbering in the St. Croix Valley," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 9:296. 

^ Durant, "Lumbering and Steamboating on the St. Croix," in Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 10:648. 

* Stanchfield, "History of Pioneer Lumbering on the Upper Mississippi," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 9:325. 



PIONEER DAYS 2g 

calico, lo doz. scalping knives, >^ gross fire steels, i gross 
Indian awl blades, looo gun flints, i m. needles, 6 lbs. cotton 
thread, and 8 lbs. of vermillion."^ 

Once a beginning had been made, other lumbermen came 
into the region. In addition to those named above. Orange 
Walker, John McKusick, Mowers, Loomis, Elam Greely, and 
the Taylor brothers were all in the region in the late thirties 
or early forties.® The lumbering industry made several early 
Minnesota towns, chief of which were Stillwater, on the St. 
Croix, and St. Anthony, on the Mississippi. John McKusick 
was at Stillwater as early as 1 844. Franklin Steele staked out a 
claim on the east side of the Mississippi at the Falls of St. 
Anthony as early as 1838, but the first saw mill did not begin 
operations at St. Anthony until the autumn of 1848. Lumber- 
men from New England came in large numbers to this settle- 
ment and gave it the appearance of a thriving New England 
village.^ 

John Catlin, a man who played an important part in the 
organization of Minnesota Territory, as will be described later, 
wrote to Sibley, then the territorial delegate in Congress from 
the region that became Minnesota, wanting a government 
permit for a mill on the upper Mississippi within that portion 
ceded to the United States by the Indians. "The United States 
are getting nothing," he wrote, "for the lumber cut from the 
lands on the St. Croix & Chippewa rivers and I see no good 
reason why the same privilege of cutting timber should not be 
extended upon the upper Mississippi, particularly as the lumber 
is wanted at St. Paul and St. Anthony Falls and the country 
adjacent for permanent improvements which would so much 
enhance the value of the government lands already in the 
market."* 

* This contract, dated Mar. 13, 1837, was signed by forty seven Chippewa Indians and by 
Sibley, Warren, and Aitkin, and is in the Sibley Papers. 

* Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 

' Stanchfield, "History of Pioneer Lumbering on the Upper Mississippi," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 9:321. 

* Catlin to Sibley, Jan. 21, 1849. 



3© TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

The lumbering industry was responsible for the coming of 
the next class of white settlers, the pioneer farmers. In the 
period of beginnings, the lumbermen secured their provisions 
and supplies, for men and horses or oxen, from the settlements 
down the Mississippi. It was not long, however, until some 
of the settlers recognized the fact that Minnesota might have 
agricultural possibilities and that pioneer farmers could have a 
ready market for their surplus products among the lumber- 
men.^ Joseph Haskell and James S. Norris, so Sibley wrote, 
were "the first farmers who made Minnesota their home and 
who demonstrated that our lands are equal to any other in the 
West for the production of cereals, a fact which was denied 
not only by men not residing in the territory, but by individu- 
als among us."^" The census of 1840 stated that St. Croix 
county, Wisconsin Territory, which included the region between 
the St. Croix and the Mississippi together with a part of the 
present State of Wisconsin, produced 8,014 bushels of potatoes 
and 606 bushels of corn. Agriculture as an independent occu- 
pation did not yet exist, but it came into existence between 
1840 and 1850.^^ There had been some stock raising in the 
Minnesota region among the fur traders in the decade of the 
thirties when Joseph Renville, at Lac Qui Parle, owned "sheep 
by the hundreds and cattle by the score. "^^ As the decade of 
the thirties was the heyday of the fur trade in Minnesota, so the 
decade of the forties found lumbering the predominant industry 
and the decade of the fifties marked the transition to agricul- 
ture. 

As has already been indicated, the early settlers in Minne- 
sota were dependent upon the navigation of the Mississippi. 

' Stanchfield, "History of Pioneer Lumbering on the Upper Mississippi," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 9:321. 

*" Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
1:391. 

^' Robinson, Economic History of Agriculture in Minnesota, 39, 

*^ Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
1:391. This is an illustration of the "ranch" as a stage in the history of the West. For the 
different stages in "the procession of civilization" across the continent see Turner, The Frontier 
in American History, 12. For a criticism of this "procession" see Alvord's review of the above 
named book in Mississippi Valley Historical Review, March 1921, pp. 406-7. 



PIONEER DAYS 3I 

The first steamboat to come up the river as far as Fort Snelling 
was the "Virginia" which arrived at that point on May lo, 
1823, thus demonstrating that it was practicable for steamboats 
to navigate the upper Mississippi as far as the St. Peters river. ^^ 
There was no regular steamboat line established, however, 
until 1847 when a company was formed, Sibley being one of 
the company, to run a regular line of packets from Galena to 
Mendota. Before this time only stray boats made trips to 
this region whenever they had paying cargoes.^* Since Minne- 
sota was so far North, this means of transportation was, of 
course, available only between April and November. ^^ This 
was a serious handicap to the settlements on the upper Missis- 
sippi until the coming of the railroad in the decade of the sixties. 
The first permanent white settlement in Minnesota was 
not a part of this movement of population that came up the 
Mississippi. The real beginning of settlement came from the 
Red River valley where Lord Selkirk had attempted to establish 
a colony of Scotch highlanders. In 1811 he secured a grant 
from the Hudson Bay Company, and in 18 12 he made an 
attempt at settlement. The Northwest Fur Company objected 
strenuously to this proposed colony and, when Lord Selkirk 
arrived in 18 17 with about one hundred Swiss colonists, hos- 
tilities resulted between the companies, in which several colon- 
ists were massacred. As early as 1820 the Red River settlers 
sent to Prairie du Chien for seeds and thus commenced com- 
mercial relations with the settlements in the United States. 
In 1 821 Alexis Bailly took a drove of cattle to the Red River 
valley and on his return he was accompanied by five families 
who were disappointed at the prospects in the Pembia region 
across the line in Canada. These Swiss families were allowed 
to "squat" upon the lands belonging to the Fort Snelling 
mihtary reservation, and this constituted the first real settle- 

''Neill, "Fort Snelling from 1819 to 1840," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 2:107. 

'•' Williams, History of St. Paul and of Ramsey County, 173. 

'^ "I have known steamboats to reach St. Paul as late as the i8th or 20th of November and 
get back safely to Galena, and to return by the ist of April; but this is not usually the case." 
Sibley to Senator Foote, published in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :22. 



32 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

ment in Minnesota. In 1823 other families came from the 
Red River valley, and by 1835 nearly five hundred persons 
had come. Some of these Swiss families remained as squatters 
on the military reserve, but most of them went on down the 
Mississippi, some of them going as far as Vevay, Indiana.'^ 

In 1838, the settlers were forced off the reservation lands 
west of the Mississippi. They crossed the river and erected 
cabins on land belonging to the military reserve on the east 
side of the Mississippi. The military authorities had much 
trouble with whiskey sellers who sold liquor to the soldiers at 
Fort Snelling and finally, in 1839, the United States Marshal 
from Wisconsin Territory was ordered to remove all squatters 
from the lands within the reserve on the east side of the river. 
/'Irhe settlers were given all winter to prepare, but they made 
no move to vacate the lands. On May 6, 1840, the troops from 
Fort Snelling were called out and the settlers were driven off 
and their cabins destroyed. The squatters went no farther 
than was necessary and settled down again about the whiskey 
shanty of Peter Parant, thus making the beginning of the 
settlement called "Pig's Eye," later "St. Paul's Landing," and 
finally St. Paul, the future capital of Minnesota. ^^ 

The. town of St. Paul was laid out in 1847, a year before 
the land was brought into the market. A Land Claim Associ- 
ation, an institution used in most of the States in the Middle 
West during this period, was used to secure title to the settlers.^* 

^^Neill, "Fort Snelling from 1819 to 1840," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 2:127. 

^'' Ibid, 142. 

'* "The most exciting time during this sale (at St. Croix), at which there were a great many 
people present, was on the day and the day before that on which the town-site of Saint Paul was 
offered for sale. The good people of this community were very fearful that the sale would be 
infested with a hungry set of speculators, as has too often happened at land sales in the West, 
ready with their gold to jump at every chance that presented itself, and bid over the actual 
settler. To guard against this emergency, it was understood beforehand that the Hon. H. H. 
Sibley should bid in the town-site of Saint Paul and the claims of such Canadians as did not 
understand English sufficiently to do so for themselves; and, to aid and assist in this mission a 
large and well-armed force, composed principally of Canadian Frenchmen, were present at the 
sale. Their fears, however, were not realized, and they were permitted to purchase their lands 
without molestation." From "a gentleman who was present," quoted in Williams, History of 
St. Paul and of Ramsey County, 184. 

Another pioneer, speaking of the land sales, said: "When our pieces were called, we bid 
them in and everything passed off in good shape; but I assure you, gentlemen, had any poor 



PIONEER DAYS ^3 

A tract of ninety acres was secured at the first land sales, which 
were held at St. Croix in 1848, and the town plat was legally 
entered in 1849.*' 

The settlement at Pembina in the Red River valley also 
grew out of the settlement of the Selkirk colony. When that 
colony was first established, the boundary line between the 
United States and the British possessions was not definitely 
fixed west of the Lake of the Woods. In 18 18, it was agreed 
that the 49th degree of latitude should be the boundary, and 
from 1823 when the line was located the British companies 
tried to keep the settlement on the Canadian side.^" The British 
fur companies continued to draw large amounts of furs from the 
region south of the line even as late as 1849 when Minnesota 
Territory was organized.^i A settlement, called Pembina, 
grew up on the American side and by 1849 ^^^ ^ population of 
637, mostly half-breeds connected with the fur trade. 

The trade which grew up between the Red River settlements 
and St. Paul was carried on in what were known as the Red 
River ox-carts, rude two-wheeled vehicles made entirely of 
wood. By 1844 regular trains of these carts began to reach the 
little settlement of St. Paul, bringing buflPalo tongues, buffalo 
robes, furs, and pemmican, and taking back general supplies, 

fellow attempted to put his finger in our pie, he would have heard something drop." Larpen- 
tuer, "Recollections of St. Paul, 1 843-1 898," in Minnesota Historical Co/lections, 9:378. 

Sibley described his part in the land sales in the following words: "I was selected by the 
actual settlers to bid off portions of the land for them, and, when the hour for business had 
arrived, my seat was invariably surrounded by a number of men with huge bludgeons. What 
was meant by the proceedings I could, of course, only surmise, but I would not have envied the 
fate of the individual who would have ventured to bid against me." Sibley, "Reminiscences of 
the Early Days in Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 3:244. 

^' Williams, History 0/ St. Paul and of Ramsey County, 171. 

*" In a letter to the Chronicle and Register, in 1849, ]o^'^ Pope stated that the half-breeds 
"were actually forced by the Hudson Bay Company to remove to the British side of the line." 
Chronicle and Register, Oct. 13, 1849. 

^1 The Hudson Bay Company opposed the trading with the Indians by the settlers at 
Pembina. "Their minions do not stop to search for the 49th parallel when on the track of some 
poor trader who has bought of an Indian a fox or a lynx skin. No difference to them whether he 
is on British or American ground. Thanks to Mr. Kittson, the 'Yankee Trader,' as the Bay 
Company's agents call him, he has fully established his claims at Pembina, and the rich packages 
of furs brought in this season abundantly proves that he is fully able to maintain it. We are 
inclined to think that 'John Bull caught a tartar' when he undertook to bully Kittson." Min- 
nesota Register, Aug. 11, 1849. 



34 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

The route usually followed by these carts led up the Red River 
valley, on the Dakota side of the river, crossed between Lake 
Traverse and Big Stone Lake, and thence by way of Traverse 
des Sioux to St. Paul. After 1844 a more direct trail was cut 
through farther north, and this route was followed later by the 
Northern Pacific railroad." 

Very little government existed before 1840 in the region 
which became Minnesota. In that year, the peninsula between 
the St. Croix and the Mississippi rivers was included in the 
newly organized county of St. Croix, Wisconsin Territory. In 
the region west of the Mississippi, Sibley was for many years 
the only representative of the law, having received a commis- 
sion as Justice of the Peace in Clayton county, Iowa Territory, 
in 1838. "It was my fortune," Sibley wrote, "to be the first to 
introduce the machinery of the law into what our legal brethern 
would have termed a benighted region, having received a com- 
mission as Justice of the Peace from the Governor of Iowa 
Territory, for the county of Clayton. This county was an 
empire in itself in extent, reaching from a line some twenty 
miles below Prairie du Chien on the west of the 'Father of 
Waters' to Pembina, and across to the Missouri river. As I 
was the only magistrate in this region and the county seat was 
some three hundred miles distant, I had matters pretty much 
under my own control, there being little chance of an appeal 
from my decisions. In fact, some of the simple-minded people 
around me firmly believed that I had the power of life and 
death."23 

^^ Robinson, Economic History of Agriculture in Minnesota, 32. 

'^ Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days of Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 3:266. Sibley was also the foreman of the first grand jury ever empanelled on the west 
side of the Mississippi in what is now the State of Minnesota. Sibley, "Reminiscences of the 
Early Days of Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 3:267. Sibley's commissions as 
Justiceof the Peace, dated Oct. 30, 1838, Jan. 19, 1839, and July 17, 1840 are in the Sibley Papers 
(Misc.). 



CHAPTER IV 
THE MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 

Since most of our territories were organized in much the 
same way the story of the organization of Minnesota may be 
taken as a type. The first movement in Congress for the 
organization of a territory west of Wisconsin was during the 
session of 1846-47 while the enabling act for Wisconsin was 
under consideration when a bill for that purpose was introduced 
in the House by Morgan L. Martin, the delegate from Wisconsin 
Territory. The Committee on Territories reported the bill 
favorably, but with the name "Itasca" which Stephen A. 
Douglas, the chairman of the committee, was said to favor. 
When the bill came up in the House other names were 
suggested. Houston, of Delaware, proposed the name 
"Washington"; Thompson of Mississippi, suggested 
"Jackson"; Winthrop, of Massachusetts, thought "Chippewa" 
most suitable. Martin moved to substitute "Minnesota" for 
"Itasca," as had originally been provided in his bill, and this 
motion prevailed. The bill with amendments passed the 
House, but was not passed by the Senate. ^ 

Another effort was made during the next session of Congress 
when Douglas, who had recently been elected to the Senate, 
introduced a bill into the Senate. It received some considera- 
tion by that body, but Congress adjourned on August 14, 1848, 
without passing it.^ In the meantime, on May 29, the State of 
Wisconsin had been admitted into the Union with its western 
boundary at the St. Croix river. This situation apparently 
left the people who lived between the St. Croix and the Missis- 
sippi without political organization. They had been included 

'The chief ol>jections to the bill in the Senate were the scanty population, the fact that no 
lands had been surveyed and sold in the region, and the fact that the people there had not re- 
quested such organization. Congressional Globe, 29 Cong. 1 Sess. 71, 441, 445. 

^ Congressional Globe, 30 Cong, i Sess. 136, 656, 772. 

3S 



^6 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

in the Territory of Wisconsin, whose boundary had extended to 
the Mississippi, but they were not included in the new State. 

While the bill for the admission of Wisconsin was under 
consideration this matter of boundaries had called forth lively 
discussions, both in Congress and in the then Territory of 
Wisconsin. Several lines had been proposed as the north- 
western boundary of the new State, In order of size which 
they would give, the lines most seriously considered were as 
follows: (a) a line drawn due west from Lake Superior to the 
Mississippi river; (b) the Rum river line; (c) the St. Croix 
river line; (d) a line drawn from Rush river of Lake Pepin to 
Lake Superior; (e) the Menominee river and the Brule river.' 
The first two lines above mentioned met with objections largely 
because of the size they would give Wisconsin and also because 
there would not be enough settled territory left for the immedi- 
ate organization of Minnesota Territory. The chief difficulty, 
after discarding the first mentioned line, was as to what should 
be done with the St. Croix valley. The second constitutional 
convention of Wisconsin wanted to include this entire region 
in the new State and asked that the boundary be placed at the 
Rum River. Most of the people living in the St. Croix valley, 
together with the few who lived west of the Mississippi, where 
there was no political organization at all after the admission 
of Iowa, favored the Rush river line in order to keep the entire 
St. Croix valley under the same jurisdiction and so it would be 
in the proposed new territory of Minnesota. Those people 
objected to being included in Wisconsin largely because the 
geographical situation would make it difficult for them to go to 
Madison, the State capital. Distance was not the only diffi- 
culty these people would encounter, however, as extensive 
pine barrens and swamps were between the two places. These 
were not and would not for many years be inhabited or have 
roads constructed through them. If, on the other hand, the 

'The first four lines are mentioned in Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :48j. The fifth line was proposed by Smith, of Illinois, on 
May 9, 1848. Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. I Sess. 742. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 37 

entire St. Croix valley was left out of Wisconsin and included 
in Minnesota, water transportation and communication to the 
capital of the new territory, Stillwater, St. Paul, Mendota, 
or where ever it might be located, would be comparatively 
easy."* The St. Croix line had been proposed by Congress and 
was finally accepted. It was a compromise line and has since 
remained the northwestern boundary of Wisconsin.^ 

The admission of Wisconsin and the failure of Congress to 
pass the bill for the organization of Minnesota Territory caused 
the people living in the residuum of Wisconsin Territory to 
assert what they considered their rights to political organiza- 
tion and to representation in Congress. The first meeting for 
the agitation of the subject was held in St. Paul in July, 1848, 
even before Congress had adjourned. The meeting was organ- 
ized by the election of a chairman and secretary, some speeches 
were made, and resolutions were adopted in favor of a conven- 
tion of the people of the region.^ 

The next step was the meeting at Stillwater on August 4, 
1848, attended by citizens from that place and by some from 
St. Paul and the region west of the Mississippi, who were on 
their way to the land sales at St. Croix, Wisconsin. The 
meeting seems to have been an informal gathering, and about 
all that was done was to issue the following call for another 
meeting at Stillwater: "We, the undersigned, citizens of Min- 
nesota Territory, impressed with the necessity of taking meas- 
ures to secure an early Territorial organization, and that these 
measures should be taken by the people with unity of action, 
respectfully recommend that the people of the several settle- 

* Congressional Globe, 30 Cong, i Sess. 742-743. Sibley favored the Rush river line and 
was active in defeating the Rum river line. Sibley, "Reminiscences Historical and Personal," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :483. A memorial signed by 346 citizens, including Sibley, 
in relation to the Rum river line is in Senate Miscellaneous Documents, No. 98, 30 Cong, i Sess. 

* This did not, however, end the agitation on the part of those settlers who lived east of 
the St. Croix river and who were included in Wisconsin. Efforts were made even after the or- 
ganization of Minnesota Territory to have the boundary changed so as to transfer that part of 
the St. Croix valley to Minnesota Territory. Minnesota Pioneer, Feb. 13, 1850. Also Minnesota 
Chronicle, Feb. 15, 1850. 

* Williams, History of St. Paul and of Ramsey County, 181. Also Sibley, "Reminiscences 
Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 1:484. 



38 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

ments in the proposed Territory appoint delegates to meet 
in convention at Stillwater, on the 26th day of August next, 
to adopt the necessary steps for that purpose."^ 

Pursuant to this call, there assembled at the appointed time 
the meeting which has since been known in Minnesota as the 
"Stillwater Convention."^ Joseph R. Brown took the leading 
part in the work of the convention. Morton S. Wilkinson, of 
Stillwater, was chosen temporary president and David Lambert, 
of St. Paul, temporary secretary. The committee on perma- 
nent organization reported the name of Samuel Burkleo for 
president, Robert Kennedy and Joshua L. Taylor for vice 
presidents, and William Holcombe and David Lambert for 
secretaries. A committee of seven, composed of Joseph R. 
Brown, Calvin Leach, H. H. Sibley, Socrates Nelson,' M. S. 
Wilkinson, Henry Jackson, and H. L. Moss, was appointed to 
draft two memorials, one to Congress and one to President 
Polk, asking for the immediate organization of Minnesota 
Territory. These memorials recited that the people residing 
in the region had formerly been subject to the laws of Iowa and 
Wisconsin; that a judicial circuit had been established and 
courts of record held in the region in question; that there was a 
population of nearly five thousand persons who were engaged 
in various industrial pursuits; that with the admission of 
Wisconsin they were "left without officers to administer and 
execute the laws; that, having once enjoyed the rights and 
privileges of citizens of a Territory of the United States, they 
were, without any fault or blame of their own, virtually dis- 
franchised." The memorial also stated that there were no 
securities of life and property "but those which exist by mutual 
understanding"; that all proceedings in criminal cases had been 
suspended, and all the operations of business had been embar- 
rassed. While the citizens already in Minnesota were said to 

' It is important to notice that in this call the members of this convention spoke of them- 
selves as "citizens of Minnesota Territory." This call was signed by eighteen citizens, including 
Sibley. 

* The proceedings of this meeting are published in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :55-56. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 39 

be law-abiding,^ nevertheless the situation was fraught with 
evils and dangers. "Its continuance," they said, "will tend to 
prevent the immigration of the more valuable class of citizens 
of the United States, while it will open the door of invitation 
and allurement to the lawless and desperate. It will foster 
dishonest and disorderly principles and action among their 
citizens, and, if suffered to exist for a long period, will bring 
ruin upon a prosperous and fertile region." The memorial was 
signed by all of the sixty-one members. 

The convention also approved a set of resolutions, the pre- 
amble of which made it perfectly clear that the inhabitants of 
the residuum of Wisconsin Territory believed that the terri- 
torial government ceased with the admission of Wisconsin 
and that the failure of Congress to organize a separate terri- 
torial government over them, which they could explain only on 
the ground that Congress was unacquainted with conditions, 
deprived them of rights and privileges which were guaranteed 
to them by the Ordinance of 1787. It was also resolved that a 
"delegate" should be appointed "to visit Washington" during 
the next session of Congress "there to represent the interests of 
the proposed Territory, and to urge the immediate organization 
of the same." It was resolved further that a committee of six 
should be appointed, three members residing on the St. Croix 
and three on the Mississippi, to "collect information relative 
to the amount of business transacted and capital employed 
within the limits of Minnesota Territory, and forward such 
information as soon as may be, to our Delegate." Finally, it 
was resolved "That there shall be a committee of seven ap- 
pointed by the president of this Convention to act as a central 
committee, whose duty it shall be to correspond with our Dele- 
gate at Washington, and to adopt all other proper means to 
forward the objects of this Convention." 

The convention then proceeded to the election of a delegate. 
"On the first ballot," reads the minutes, "Mr. H. H. Sibley, 

' Minnesota was fortunate in this respect as the settlement of California which was taking 
place at the same time drew the most lawless characters away from the upper Mississippi 
country. 



40 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

having received a majority of all the votes cast, was, on motion 
of Joseph R. Brown, declared unanimously elected by the 
Convention." Sibley was given a certificate of election signed 
by the President, the Vice President, and the Secretaries of the 
convention.^'' 

It is evident from the proceedings of this convention that 
these people regarded themselves as being without territorial 
organization. The "delegate" which they had in mind was 
more of an "agent" than a delegate in the sense that a regular 
territory was entitled to be represented by such an officer. 
Their "delegate" was merely "to visit Washington" to lobby for 
the organization of the territory, and it was expected that he 
would defray his own expenses." 

This meeting illustrates a significant fact in the history of 
the West. These people, after Congress failed to establish 
any political jurisdiction over them, might have had any kind 
of government of their own making, or no government at all. 
Men on the frontier under these circumstances have chosen 
to have an orderly and properly constituted authority over 
them. When such did not exist, they themselves maintained 
order. It is remarkable that business could be carried on at 
all in a region where there was no legal provision for govern- 
ment, as was true west of the Mississippi after the admission of 
Iowa and was true in the residuum of Wisconsin Territory after 
the admission of Wisconsin and before the organization of 
Minnesota Territory. 

Soon after the Stillwater Convention, the theory of having 
Minnesota East^^ still called Wisconsin Territory and con- 
tinuing the territorial organization there came into existence. 
It is uncertain as to who originated this project, but on August 
22, 1848, Secretary John Catlin, of the Territory of Wisconsin, 
wrote from Madison to William Holcombe, of Stillwater, pro- 

'" This certificate of election is to be found among the Sibley Papers. 

" Williams, History of St. Paul and of Ramsey County, 183. Also Moss, "Early Days in 
Minnesota Territory," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 8:78. 

*^ Minnesota East is an expression to describe that part of Minnesota which lay east of the 
Mississippi and had been in Wisconsin Territory. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 4I 

posing the continuance of the organization.^^ Catlin also sent 
along with his letter a copy of an opinion by Secretary of State 
Buchanan to the effect that the laws of Wisconsin Territory 
"were still in force over the territory not embraced within the 
limits of the State." "It cannot well be supposed," Buchanan 
wrote, "that Congress, by admitting the State of Wisconsin 
into the Union, intended to deprive the citizens of the United 
States, beyond its limits, of the protection of existing laws; 
and there is nothing in their legislation from which any such 
inference can be drawn. The difficult question is, what officers 
still remain to carry those laws into execution. It is clear to my 
mind that all the local officers residing in counties without the 
State line, such as judges of probate, sheriffs, justices of the 
peace, and constables, may exercise their appropriate functions 
as heretofore. Whether the general officers, such as Governor, 
Secretary, and Judges, appointed for the whole of the former 
Territory, are authorized to perform their duties within what 
remains of it, presents a question of great difficulty, on which 
I express no opinion. W^hatever may be the correct decision 
of this question, immediate legislation is required; because it 
is very certain that Congress will never consent to maintain 
the machinery provided for the government of the entire Terri- 
tory, merely for the purpose of governing the twenty-five 
hundred or three thousand inhabitants who reside beyond the 
limits of the State. "^^ 

The point on which Buchanan would give no opinion was 
precisely the course that Catlin proposed to pursue. He rea- 
soned that if the laws of Wisconsin Territory were still in force, 
it was "equally clear that the officers necessary to carry out 
those laws are still in office." This would include the Secretary 
and the Delegate in Congress. In regard to the delegate, 
CatHn cited a precedent in the fact that "after the organization 
of the State of Michigan but before her admission, General 

" This letter of Catlin's is published in Minnesota Historical Collections, i :53-S4. where it is 
incorrectly stated that the letter was read to the Stillwater meeting of August 4, 1848. 
"Buchanan's opinion is published in Minnesota Historical Collections, 1:54-56. 



42 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

George W. Jones was elected by the Territory of Michigan, 
(now the State of Wisconsin) and was allowed to take his seat." 
"It is my opinion," Catlin continued, "that if your people 
were to elect a delegate this fall, he would be allowed to take 
his seat in December, and then a government might be fully 
organized; and unless a delegate is elected and sent on, I do not 
believe a government will be organized for several years. If 
Mr. Tweedy^^ were to resign, (and he would if requested), I 
do not see anything to prevent my issuing a proclamation for 
an election to fill the vacancy, as the acting Governor; but I 
should not like to do so unless the people would act under it 
and hold the election. If a delegate were elected by color of 
law. Congress would never inquire into the legality of the elec- 
tion. It is the opinion of most all this way that the government 
of the Territory of Wisconsin still continues, although it is 
nearly inoperative, for want of a court and legislature."^® 

This scheme was actually carried through. Tweedy resigned 
his office as delegate on September i8, 1848. Since the Gover- 
nor of Wisconsin Territory, Henry M. Dodge, had been elected 
to the Senate from Wisconsin, Secretary Cathn, on the theory 
that the election of Dodge to the Senate vacated the office of 
Governor, came to the residuum of Wisconsin Territory as 
acting Governor and issued a proclamation on October 9, 
calling an election for October 30, for the purpose of electing 
a delegate to Congress from Wisconsin Territory. 

In the campaign which followed, Sibley and Henry M. Rice, 
both of Mendota, were the only candidates and neither seems 
to have made much effort to be elected, although the friends of 

'* Tweedy was the delegate from Wisconsin Territory at the time of the admission of the 
State and lived in the region embraced within the State. 

1^ Friends of Sibley living in Wisconsin wrote to him giving the information that Catlin 
would call an election and urging him to establish his residence in Wisconsin Territory and be 
eligible as a candidate for delegate. D. G. Fenton to Sibley, Sept. 4, 1848; also J. D. Doty to 
Sibley, Sept. 4, 1848. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 43 

both carried on an active and spirited campaign.''' In the 
latter part of September a report was circulated at Stillwater 
that Sibley was wilHng to withdraw in favor of a St. Croix 
candidate, if one was placed in the field, and if Rice became a 
candidate. Friends of Sibley who lived at Stillwater wrote to 
him and urged that he not withdraw. The chief interest which 
the citizens of Stillwater had in a candidate from that section 
of the territory seemed to have been that they were interested 
in the removal of the Land Office from St. Croix, Wisconsin, 
to Stillwater, and believed that a delegate who lived there 
would work more zealously to that end than either Sibley or 
Rice, both of whom lived on the Mississippi.'^ 

In the early part of the campaign the sentiment was decided 
in favor of Sibley, but in the last few weeks before the election 
Rice gained considerable strength on the St. Croix, evidently 
due to certain promises that were made by his friends and cer- 
tain reports that were circulated regarding Sibley. Sibley's 
friends distrusted Rice and believed that he was using, or would 
use, underhanded methods to gain the election. Some men 
actually favored Rice because they believed that he would use 
methods in securing the organization of Minnesota that Sibley 
would not use.'^ As long as the end was legitimate, some 
frontiersmen were not inclined to be too particular as to the 
means employed to secure the end, provided it had, as Catlin 
said, "the color of law." 

An incident came up during the latter part of October which 
shows the attitude and methods used by men on the frontier 
to secure what they regarded as their rights. Catlin was very 
anxious to have a large vote polled, believing that it would 
operate to a large extent in promoting the organization of 

^'Neither candidate was a resident of Wisconsin Territory at the time of the election. 
They were acting on the theory that it was not necessary for the delegate, as for Governor and 
other officers, to reside in the territory. Much will be heard of Rice later on. He was a fur trader 
and had considerable influence with the Winnebago Indians. During the summer of 1848, he 
was helping remove these Indians to their new reservation near Crow Wing. This explains 
why he was not at Stillwater for the Convention and why he did not give more time to the can- 
vass for delegate. 

^* Potts to Sibley, Sept. 14, 1848. 



44 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Minnesota Territory, thereby seemingly justifying himself for 
the part he was playing in the residuum of Wisconsin Terri- 
tory. He suggested to friends of the two candidates the expedi- 
ency "of relaxing the challenges so as to admit of a full vote of 
all who would be entitled to suffrage if the Territory was 
organized." This, of course, proposed to let the settlers who 
lived west of the Mississippi, and therefore outside of Wisconsin 
Territory, have a vote in the election of a delegate from the 
residuum of that territory. This would admit some French 
Canadians who were favorable to Sibley and the settlers at 
Crow Wing who were favorable to Rice. It was probably 
thought that if they went west of the Mississippi for candidates 
they might as well go to the same region for voters, especially 
since they were using the name of Wisconsin Territory only as 
a means of securing the organization of Minnesota. Catlin's 
proposal was made known to Sibley through David Lambert, 
of St. Paul. Sibley objected to this practice and gave several 
reasons for doing so. In the first place, he said that Congress 
would proably scrutinize more strictly than usual the claims 
of the person elected as delegate when he presented himself for 
admission to the House, and that any irregularity in the elec- 
tion would decrease the probability of his admission. In the 
second place, if Rice was defeated he might choose to contest 
the election on the ground of illegality by the admission of 
these votes. In the third place, and this was the reason that 
Rice favored the proposal. Rice had "either in his employ or 
under his immediate influence a large number of men who are 
not legal voters, and who would to a man cast their votes for 
him and thus neutralize those of the old settlers." Sibley also 
pointed out that many of the French could not vote anyway 
under the proposal, since they had not declared their intention 

'' Among other things it was reported that "the people of St. Paul had everything cut and 
dried" to elect Sibley and defeat Stillwater in their efforts to get the Land Office. Also it was 
said that Sibley had "packed" the Stillwater Convention by bringing over some French Cana- 
dians to vote for him for delegate. Jacob Fisher to Sibley, Sept. 24, 1 848. Also Moss to Sibley, 
Oct. 10 and Oct. 20, 1848; and Potts to Sibley, Oct. 3, 1848. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 45 

of becoming citizens, and that the proposition would operate 
chiefly in favor of Rice. Sibley maintained that it was not 
necessary to resort to illegal means to secure the organization 
of Minnesota, since the delegate could easily explain that there 
were more people in the region than was indicated by the elec- 
tion returns. He therefore insisted that the election laws be 
followed to the letter.^" In spite of his attitude, however, the 
two election precincts were established. He then protested to 
Cathn who skillfully shifted the responsibility to the county 
commissioners of St. Croix county who established the pre- 
cincts.^^ 

The election was held on October 30, 1848, without any 
serious disturbance or disorder, but with circumstances which 
suggest irregularities on the part of some of Rice's friends." 
Sibley was elected and received from Cathn a certificate of 
election. He had, therefore, a double election, one by the 
Stillwater Convention as "delegate" from the proposed Terri- 
tory of Minnesota and one by virtue of what was claimed to 
be a legal election in Wisconsin Territory, as a regular terri- 
torial delegate. 

Sibley left for Washington before the news of the presi- 
dential election was received in Minnesota, and when his con- 
stituents heard that Taylor had been elected President they 
feared that the desire to get the first chance at the patronage 
in a new territory would cause the Whig members of the House 
not to favor the immediate organization of Minnesota. J. S. 
Norris wrote a very prophetic letter to Sibley on December 31, 
1848, in regard to the passage of the Minnesota bill. "Some 
doubts are entertained here," he wrote, "with regard to our 
getting an organization this session as it is thought that the 
Whig administration will prefer making the original appoint- 
ments to having Democrats in office or making immediate 

^^ David Lambert to Sibley, Oct. ii, 1848. Also Henry Jackson to Sibley, Oct. 14, 1848. 
A copy of Sibley's reply is in the Sibley Papers under date of Oct. 12, 1848. 

'^^ Moss to Sibley, Oct. 20, 1848. Also Catlin to Sibley, Oct. 27, 1848. 

^ Instances of irregularity are mentioned in a letter from William Duger to W. H. Forbes, 
Oct. 31, 1848, in Sibley Papers. 



46 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

removals. But if this is the only difficulty it seems to me it 
can be avoided by the passage of the bill during the last hours 
of the session for I think we had better have Whig officers than 
no organization at all." 

Some of Sibley's influential friends assisted him by writing 
to members of Congress in behalf of Minnesota. The most 
distinguished of these friends was Lewis Cass, the recent 
Democratic candidate for President against Taylor. While 
Sibley was in Detroit on his way to Washington, Cass gave 
him letters of introduction to some of the leading Democrats 
in Congress. John Catlin, who, the election of a delegate being 
accomplished, had again taken up his residence at Madison, 
Wisconsin, wrote to several members of Congress. He also 
furnished Sibley with arguments in favor of the immediate 
organization of Minnesota. "The strong arguments in the 
case," he wrote to Sibley on November 21, 1848, "are the 
number of inhabitants, the amount of business, the fact that 
the government has sold public lands and invited the people 
to settle there, and the fact that a government has once been 
extended over them. If the government will not allow a State 
to repudiate or secede^ can it nullify or repudiate a State or 
Territory and to repeal the law establishing a government is 
the same thing. If a State cannot secede without the consent 
of the Union, the Government cannot throw off a people with- 
out their consent when a government has once been estab- 
lished." Catlin thought that the question was so plain that it 
needed "only to be understood to be correctly decided." 

On his way to the national capital, Sibley fell in with some 
congressmen who were on their way to Washington for the 
opening of the session and he had conversations with them 
regarding the situation on the northwestern frontier. He 
mentioned especially Wentworth, of Illinois, who manifested 
much interest in Sibley's mission, but who advised him not to 
ask to be admitted as a delegate from Wisconsin Territory. 
Wentworth believed that Sibley would fail in this if he at- 
tempted it and that such failure would prejudice Congress 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 47 

against the organization of Minnesota. He believed that Sib- 
ley could do more for Minnesota as a lobby member than as a 
delegate from Wisconsin Territory. Sibley arrived in Washing- 
ton two days before the opening of Congress and was soon con- 
vinced that his admission to a seat was extremely uncertain, if 
not improbable, 2^ 

It was a momentous period in American history and one 
not very favorable to the organization of a territory when 
Sibley sent in his credentials as a delegate. The Mexican War 
had just been fought, bringing under the jurisdiction of the 
United States the immense cession of territory in the west and 
southwest. It would be necessary before long for Congress to 
make some arrangement for territorial organization in that 
region. The questions which finally led to the Compromise of 
1850 were taking shape in the minds of members of Congress. 
In that same year, 1848, the Free Soil Party had come into 
existence to fight against the further extension of slavery and, 
while it did not carry any States in the election, it did take 
enough votes from Cass to give New York and the election to 
Taylor. Congress was preparing itself for the great struggle 
that was coming. These were the conditions when Sibley 
sought admission and began his fight for the organization of 
Minnesota. 

Sibley's credentials were presented on the first day of the 
session by James Wilson, of New Hampshire, in whose hands 
they were placed, as Sibley said, because "he had formerly 
lived in Iowa and might be supposed to be better informed as to 
our situation and geographical position, than any other mem- 
ber."24 Wilson rose to a privileged question and, in presenting 

^' Sibley, First Address to the People of Minnesota Territory, March lo, 1849. Published 
in pamphlet form in Washington, copies of which are in the library of the Minnesota Historical 
Society. It is also published in West, Sibley, appendix, 442. 

^* How little the frontier region of the upper Mississippi valley was known to even well- 
informed men of the time is shown by the speeches of some members of Congress while the 
Minnesota hill was under consideration. Root, of Ohio, especially denounced as farcical and 
absurd the formation of a territory in such a region as Minnesota. "When God's footstool is so 
densely populated," he said, "that each human being can only occupy two feet square, then, 
and not till then, will white men go to that hyperborean region of the Northwest, fit only to be 
the home of savages and wild beasts." Congressional Globe, 30. Cong. 2 Sess. 



48 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the credentials, explained the circumstances under which 
Sibley had been elected, and asked that he be admitted without 
objection. The matter was not to be so easily disposed of, 
however, since Cobb, of Georgia, thought the matter should be 
investigated by a committee.^^ Wilson thereupon submitted 
the papers and moved that they be referred to the Committee 
on Elections. This motion was agreed to and the question of 
Sibley's admission was not settled for six weeks. During this 
time Sibley was, through courtesy, permitted to occupy a seat 
in the House but he was, as he afterwards explained, "little 
more than a lobby member." 

At the time that his credentials were presented there was 
some curiosity manifested by the members to see what kind 
of a person had been elected to represent the distant and wild 
territory claiming representation in Congress. *T was told," 
Sibley later wrote, "that there was some disappointment felt 
when I made my appearance, for it was expected that the dele- 
gate from this remote region would make his debut^ if not in 
full Indian costume, at least with some peculiarities of dress and 
manners, characteristic of the rude and semi-civilized people 
who had sent him to the capital."-^ No doubt Sibley's stately 
bearing and dignified appearance, his high character and attain- 
ments, had much to do with the final action of the House in 
admitting him to a seat. 

The Committee on Elections took up the consideration of 
Sibley's credentials and his right to a seat in the House. Boy- 
den, of North Carolina, was the principal opponent. He made 
a "long and labored argument" against Sibley's right to a seat 
and "ridiculed the pretentions that a territorial organization 
still existed in the country north and west of Wisconsin." On 
December 22, Sibley dehvered a speech before the committee 
in support of his claims. He stated that no question had been 
or could be raised with regard to the legality of his election. 

25 Ibid, p. 2. 

2' Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days in Minnesota," Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 3 :27o. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 49 

The only question involved was whether "the residuum of 
Wisconsin Territory, after the admission of the State, remained 
in possession of the same rights and immunities which were 
secured to the people of the whole Territory by the organic 
law." The failure of Congress to repeal the organic act of 
Wisconsin Territory, Sibley argued, made it clear that the 
"residuum remains under the full operation of the same organic 
law." Good faith on the part of the United States, he said, 
demanded that the people whom he had come to represent 
should be given proper representation. "The Government 
of the United States, when it invited its citizens to emigrate 
to the Territory of Wisconsin by the formation of a temporary 
government, must have intended to act in good faith towards 
them, by continuing over them the provisions of the organic 
law. Sixteen thousand acres of land had been purchased, for 
the most part by bona fide settlers, the proceeds of which have 
gone into your treasury. Taxed equally with other inhabitants 
of the Union for the support of the General Government, they 
are certainly entitled to equal privileges." The people whom 
he represented were not asking to have rights given them; they 
had already enjoyed these rights and privileges. They had par- 
ticipated in the election of a delegate, they had a full county 
organization (St. Croix county), and had formed a part of a 
judicial circuit. If laws were in force among them it v/as 
because of the organic law of Wisconsin Territory, the same 
act that entitled them to a delegate in Congress. In closing 
his speech, Sibley paid a high tribute to the pioneers of the 
Northwest and made an earnest appeal for a fair decision. 
"The people have emigrated to the remote region they now 
inhabit under many disadvantages. They have not been 
attracted thither by the glitter of inexhaustible gold mines, 
but with the spirit which has actuated all our pioneers of civiliza- 
tion. They have gone there to labor with the axe, the anvil, 
and the plow. They have elected a delegate, with the full 
assurance that they had a right to do so, and he presents him- 
self here for admission. Sir, was this a question in which the 



50 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

consequences would be confined to me personally, the honor- 
able members of this House would not find me here, day after 
day, wearying their patience by my appeals and explanations. 
But believing as I do, before God, that my case and the question 
whether there is any law in the Territory of Wisconsin are 
intimately and indissolubly blended together, I trust that the 
House of Representatives will, by its decision of the claim 
before it, establish the principle, which shall be as a land 
mark in all coming time, that citizens of this mighty RepubHc, 
upon whom the rights and immunities of a civil government 
have once been bestowed by an act of Congress, shall not be 
deprived of these without fault or agency of their own, unless 
under circumstances of grave and imperious necessity, involving 
the safety and well-being of the whole country."" The Com- 
mittee on Elections brought in two reports, the majority report 
being favorable to Sibley and based upon his arguments. ^^ 

On January 2, 1849, Thompson, of Indiana, from the Com- 
mittee on Elections, reported to the House with the resolu- 
tion: ''Resolved, that Henry Hastings Sibley be admitted to a 
seat on the floor of the House of Representatives as a Delegate 
from the Territory of Wisconsin," The report and resolution 
were laid on the table and ordered to be printed. They were 
taken up again on January 15, and Sibley was seated by a vote 
of 124 to 62.2^ An analysis of this vote reveals some interesting 
facts. Of the 124 voting in the affirmative 65 were Democrats 
and 59 were Whigs. Of the 62 voting in the negative, 27 were 
Democrats and 2S Whigs. The resolution was carried, there- 
fore, by a majority vote of both parties. Sibley had been 
elected delegate, not as a member of any political party, but 
as the most influential man in the region, and the vote on seating 
him shows that politics was not the controlling factor in the 
decision of the House. Of the 124 voting in the affimative, 
57 were from the East, of whom 2S were Whigs and 22 Demo- 

^' West, Sibley, appendix, 435-441. 

** Sibley, First Address to the People of Minnesota, March 10, 1849. A's° published in 
West, Sibley, appendix, 442-443. 

*' Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess. 137, 259, 260. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 5I 

crats; 38 were from the West, of whom 13 were Whigs and 25 
Democrats; 29 were from the South, of whom 11 were Whigs 
and 18 Democrats. Of the 6^ votes in the negative, 24 were 
from the East, of whom 19 were Whigs and 5 Democrats; 2 
were from the West, one Whig and one Democrat; 3 were 
from the South, of whom 15 were Whigs and 21 Democrats. 
Grouped according to sections, therefore, the East voted 57 
for and 24 against. The West voted 38 for and 2 against; the 
South voted 29 for and 36 against. This indicates that the 
South was not anxious to have a territory organized in the 
North and started on the way to statehood without a corre- 
sponding territory in the South, but the vote is not as large that 
way as might have been expected. ^° 

It is interesting to note some of the individuals and how 
they voted on the question. Abraham Lincohi was present and 
voted in the affirmative; also Giddings, of Ohio, Tallmadge, of 
New York, Wentworth, of Illinois, and Wilmot, of Pennsyl- 
vania. On the other hand, Horace Greely, of New York, 
Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, King, Toombs, and Cobb, all 
from Georgia, and Boyden, of North Carolina, were among 
those voting in the negative. 

Although the House of Representatives had voted to seat 
Sibley as a delegate from Wisconsin Territory, it did not admit 
the continuance of the territorial organization. This was shown 
a few days after Sibley was seated when Mullin, of New York, 
who had opposed seating Sibley, in order to open the question 
for debate, as there had not been an opportunity before on 
account of the rule of the previous question, moved to add an 
amendment to the general appropriation bill for an appropria- 
tion of ^10,500 for the territorial officers of Wisconsin Territory, 
the same amount as was included for Oregon. Although this 
amendment was finally rejected it led to a lively debate, and 
the House was taunted with having admitted a delegate to 

^° In this analysis East means east of the Alleghanies and north of the Potomac; West 
means west of the Alleghanies and north of the Ohio; South means south of the Potomoc and 
Ohio rivers. 



^2 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

represent a territory which in reality had no legal existence.'^ 
This action of the House showed that there was a repudiation 
of the idea that there was still a Territory of Wisconsin, and 
indicated that the members who had voted to seat Sibley had 
been influenced by other considerations. This was partly due 
to the personal regard which many members had for Sibley 
and their willingness to help along the organization of Minne- 
sota Territory. This action of Congress in refusing the appro- 
priation brought disappointment to Catlin, the acting governor 
of Wisconsin Territory, who called the election for delegate. 
He wrote to Sibley in regard to the payment of his salary and 
Sibley brought it before the House but without success. 

The great object to which Sibley now gave his attention 
was the passage of the bill for the organization of Minnesota 
Territory. On the first day of the session, immediately after 
roll call, Stephen A. Douglas gave notice that he would on the 
following day or at an early day ask leave to introduce bills to 
establish the territories of Minnesota, Nebraska, and New 
Mexico, and a bill for the admission of California as a State. ^^ 
When the bill was drawn up, Douglas sent it to Sibley, who was 
allowed to change certain provisions in order to meet the wishes 
of his constituents. The principal change made by Sibley was 
in regard to the location of the capital. In the bill as drawn by 
Douglas, Mendota, Sibley's home town, was made the capital. 
Sibley knew that it was the wish of many people in the territory 
that the capital should be at St. Paul. A meeting of the Com- 
mittee on Territories was called and Sibley discussed the ques- 
tion at some length before Douglas would consent to the 
change. '* 

The Minnesota bill came up for debate on January i8, 
1849. Butler, of South Carolina, although he stated that he 
would probably not oppose its passage, reminded the Senate 

^' Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess. 295-297. Also Sibley, First Address to the People 
of Minnesota Territory, March 10, 1849. 

'^ Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess. 295-297. 

^ Ibid, I. Also Sibley, First Address to the People oj Minnesota Territory. A copy of the 
bill with corrections made in Sibley's handwriting is in the Sibley Papers. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY ^^ 

that the proposed territory included some 20,000 acres of land 
covered by the Ordinance of 1787, which had provided that 
not more than five States should be formed out of the North- 
west Territory. He considered this a violation of the Ordi- 
nance of 1787, but he admitted that the Senate no longer had 
any control over the matter, and stated that he rose simply to 
remind the Senate of this situation. Westcott, of Florida, 
thought that the bill as originally drawn provided for a terri- 
torial judiciary which was entirely unnecessary, as the popula- 
tion would not exceed 7,000 at most. He thought that it would 
be better to leave the judiciary to be provided later when the 
population had considerably augmented. Douglas reminded 
him that the provision was the same as that contained in other 
territorial bills and that the committee had thought best to 
put Minnesota upon the same footing as other territories. On 
the following day, King, of Alabama, asked regarding the 
population of Minnesota and was informed by Douglas that it 
was probably between 8,000 and 10,000, at least more than 
the usual number necessary for the establishment of a territorial 
government,'* This population, Douglas explained, was in 
compact settlements scattered throughout Minnesota and, 
while not adjoining each other, these were within the proper 
limits of the territory and in a position where laws could very 
well apply. Westcott informed King that he had had "a very 
interesting conversation with the delegate from Minnesota 
in relation to this very subject. . . . This delegate has impressed 
upon my mind the great necessity of having a territorial govern- 
ment for Minnesota by a variety of reasons. Emigrants are 
crowding rapidly into the territory and the inhabitants are 
building mills of a very important character. They are abso- 
lutely making improvements on the rivers and preparing to 

** Douglas stated the population to be about twice as large as it actually was. When the 
territorial census was taken in 1849 there were only 4,764 inhabitants, including some 317 
soldiers and their families. As a matter of fact, Minnesota had the smallest population of any 
territory at the time of its organization. This is another illustration of the ignorance regarding 
frontier conditions. It is interesting to note how the population of Minnesota grows in each of 
the speeches during the debate on the bill. 



54 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

make a dam along the side of one of the larger streams. There 
is no law to affect the actions of individuals in this respect; 
and in fact ever since Wisconsin was admitted into the Union, 
there have been no laws of any description to regulate the 
affairs of the inhabitants. I am told that there are some forty- 
lawyers practicing there, which is a favorable sign as to the 
resources and extent of settlement. I am fully satisfied of the 
necessity of immediate organization of a government over 
them."^^ Dodge, of Iowa, made a strong plea in favor of the 
immediate organization of Minnesota, and Butler, of South 
Carolina, stated that "if there are ten thousand inhabitants 
in that Territory, they certainly demand at least ordinary 
territorial government." This question of population was the 
chief objection raised in the Senate to the immediate organiza- 
tion of Minnesota, and the Senators seemed disposed to take 
the statement of Douglas as satisfactory on that point. Doug- 
las assured the Senate also that the Minnesota bill did "not 
contain a single peculiar provision," and that it was drawn up 
as other territorial bills. The bill was then ordered to its 
engrossment, read a third time by unanimous consent, and 
passed. ^^ 

The Minnesota bill came up in the House on February 8, 
1849, when Smith, of Indiana, from the Committee on Terri- 
tories, reported it back with amendments. The committee, 
being desirous of early action on the bill, had instructed the 
chairman to report an amendment to strike out the appropria- 
tion, in order to obviate the necessity of referring it to the 
Committee of the Whole. Smith explained that the bill con- 
tained nothing with which the members of the House were not 
familiar and, since it had already been printed, he hoped that 
the House would put it immediately upon its passage. The 
speaker ruled, however, that, since the bill as it came from the 
Senate had contained a provision for an appropriation, it would 

'^ Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 1 Sess. 298-99. This illustrates Sibley's method of working 
by interviews with the members of Congress. 

'* Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess. 68, 182, 286, 299. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY ^^ 

be necessary under the rules of the House for it to receive its 
first consideration in the Committee of the Whole on the state 
of the Union. 

Sibley had the following letter printed and a copy placed 
on the desk of each congressman:" 

"House of Representatives, 
Saturday February 17, 1849. 
Sir: It is not probable that the bill for the organization of Minnesota 
Territory will be reached in the order of business before the committee of the 
whole. As a failure of this bill would be a most certain calamity to the 
people of that territory, I take the liberty to appeal to your kind feelings, in 
their behalf, to sustain me in a motion I shall make on Monday to suspend 
the rules, that the bill may be taken up and passed. It is not probable that 
any debate will take place upon it. I am, sir, very respectfully, 

Your obediant servant, 

H. H. Sibley." 

The Minnesota bill was taken up again on February 22, 
and Sibley moved that the rules be suspended in order to enable 
him to submit a motion to discharge the Committee of the 
Whole from further consideration of the measure so as to bring 
it before the House. This motion was carried. Although he 
had been appealed to by several members not to do so, Sibley 
then moved the previous question. At this point Boyden, of 
North Carolina, rose to a point of order and claimed that a 
territorial delegate had no right to move the previous question. 
The Speaker decided the point against him and he appealed 
from the decision of the chair, but the House sustained the 
Speaker's ruling. The main question was finally put and was 
carried by a vote of 102 to 99. Most of the amendments were 
agreed to without debate. The most important amendment, 
from the standpoint of Congressional debate, was the following: 
"This Act shall take effect from and after the loth day of 
March, 1849." Kaufman, of Texas, a Democrat who had 
voted to seat Sibley, asked if the amendment was not offered 
palpably to give the appointment of territorial officers to Tay- 
lor instead of to Polk. The Speaker replied that he had no 

'' A copy of this letter is among the Sibley Papers. 

** Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess., 485, 513, 581-85. 



56 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

information on the subject. The amendment was then agreed 
to without further debate, by a vote of loi to 95. On February 
28, the Minnesota bill came up for passage. Sibley, expressing 
his sense of the importance of the bill and his unwillingness to 
detain the House with any remarks, moved the previous ques- 
tion and his motion was carried. The main question was then 
put and the bill was passed. 

The bill as amended in the House was returned to the Senate 
and called forth a long debate between Whigs and Democrats 
over the "spoils of office." The Senate Committee on Terri- 
tories had agreed to all amendments except the one providing 
that the act should take effect on March 10. Walker, of Wis- 
consin, although he was a Democrat, hoped that the bill would 
pass at once, since it was very important that something be 
done for Minnesota immediately. He admitted that the House 
may have been "unnecessarily careful in fixing the time" of 
its going into effect, but he hoped that the bill would not be 
delayed by sending it back to the House. Davis, of Massachu- 
setts, a Whig, thought this amendment a rather trifling matter 
and hoped that the Senate would concur. Douglas explained 
that the purpose of the amendment was to keep Polk from 
making the appointments and he, for one, was unwilling that a 
Democratic Senate should "pass this vote of censure." The 
Whig party, Douglas said, was not even willing to wait until 
their administration in order to get the spoils. Already they 
were asking that the salaries of foreign ministers be doubled 
and they were trying to create new consulships. They were 
also trying to organize a new Home Department (Department 
of the Interior) with all its train of offices. Douglas wanted to 
see a test vote on the subject and called for the ayes and nays. 
Underwood, a Whig from Kentucky, took up the debate with 
much vigor. "Mr. Douglas," he said, "reads us a lecture on 
the desire for spoils," and he thought it very becoming of 
Democrats to start this discussion, now that "the cup is to be 
applied to their own lips." He thought there was great wisdom 
in putting the law into effect at a distant date and said that "at 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 57 

the last gasp of this antinomian administration, in which so 
much is yielded to good works, we should not harass the Execu- 
tive by hunting up new offices for him to fill." Allen, a Demo- 
crat from Ohio, thought that the Whigs should be modest in 
commencing their career in power. "They will be," he said, 
"the first minority administration; they will not have a major- 
ity of the American people with them; . . . they are not 
altogether sure that there is such a thing as a living Whiggery." 
This discussion between Whigs and Democrats as to their rela- 
tive merits and desires for the spoils of office fills several pages 
of the Congressional Globe. The final outcome of the matter 
was that the Senate voted, 30 to 18, not to concur in the amend- 
ment. This was a strict party vote.'^ 

It was necessary, therefore, for the bill to go back to the 
House and, as it was so near the end of the session, it was pos- 
sible if not probable that it would yet fail of passage. Sibley's 
anxiety during these last days of the session may well be 
imagined. It was at this point that a plan of action was decided 
upon which was destined to bring success. The bill for the 
formation of the Interior Department had passed the House 
and its fate was yet to be decided in the Senate. The story of 
how this measure was linked with the Minnesota bill and both 
passed in the last hours of the session is best told in Sibley's 
own words. "It was while laboring under great apprehensions," 
he wrote, "lest the Minnesota bill should be defeated, that I 
chanced to find myself in the Senate. I expressed my fears to 
several of the democratic Senators, who were my personal 
friends, and they, to the member of five or six, authorized me 
to say to the Whig leaders in the House, that unless that body 
receded from its amendment, and thus permit Minnesota to be 
organized, they would cast their votes against the bill for the 
formation of the Interior Department. I hastened back to the 
House, called together several of the prominent Whig members, 
and informed them of the state of affairs. Satisfied that the 

'' Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess., 617, 635, 637, 681, 698. 



58 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

votes of the Senators I named would turn the whole scale for 
or against a measure they particularly desired should succeed, 
they went to work in the House, and produced so great a change 
in a short time, that a motion to recede from their amendment 
to the Senate bill was adopted the same evening, by a majority 
of some thirty or forty, and into our infant territory was 
breathed the breath of life."*'' It was too late in the session to 
include an item in the general appropriation bill for an appro- 
priation to carry the Minnesota Act into effect, and this was 
accomplished by means of a rider to a bill for the relief of James 
Norris, a citizen of the Northwest, whose claim was then pend- 
ing in Congress. 

Sibley's efforts to gain a territorial organization for his 
constituents were, therefore, rewarded with success. It had 
been his great purpose in going to Washington, and he had 
worked early and late for its accomplishment. Considering 
the state of feelings over slavery that were then crystallizing for 
the great debates of the following session, it was no easy matter 
to get the organization of a territory anywhere in the country." 
Sibley attributed much of his success to the fact that he had 
not been elected by any particular political party and that he 
had, therefore, been able to work with the leaders of both 
parties in Congress. 

The news of the passage of the Minnesota bill reached St. 
Paul on April 9, 1849. The following account of the reception 
of the news was published in the Minnesota Pioneer of April 29; 
"Monday, the ninth of April had been a pleasant day. Towards 
evening the clouds gathered, and about dark commenced a 
violent storm of wind, rain, and loud peals of thunder. The 
darkness was only dissipated by vivid flashes of lightning. On 
a sudden, in a momentary lull of the wind, the silence was 

*** Sibley, "Address before the Old Settlers' Association of Minnesota," in Minnesota His- 
torical Collections, i :62. 

^Speaking of Sibley's success in this undertaking the Chicago Times, Jan. 30, 1886, in 
reviewing Sibley's career, said: "It is scarcely possible that any other man in the Northwest 
could have attained the same result at that time. By finished manners, excellent sense, and 
knowledge of men, he speedily made friends, and succeeded in accomplishing wnat every man 
regarded as an impossibility." Quoted in West, Sibley, 130. 



MAKING OF A NEW TERRITORY 59 

broken by the groan of an engine. In another moment, the 
shrill whistle of a steamboat thrilled through the air. Another 
moment, and a bright flash of lightning revealed the welcome 
shape of a steamboat just rounding the bluffs, less than a mile 
below St. Paul. In an instant the welcome news flashed like 
electricity throughtout the town, and, regardless of the pelting 
rain, the raging wind, and the pealing thunder, almost the 
entire male population rushed to the landing as the fine steam- 
boat "Dr. Franklin No. 2" dashed gallantly up to the landing. 
Before she was made fast to the moorings, she was boarded by 
the excited throng. The good captain and clerk (Captain 
Blakeley) were the great men of the hour. Gen. Taylor cannot 
be assailed with greater importunity for the 'loaves and fishes' 
than they were for news and newspapers. At length the news 
was known, and one glad shout resounded through the boat, 
taken up on shore and echoed from our beetling bluffs and rol- 
ling hills, proclaimed the bill for the organization of Minnesota 
Territory had become a law." 

Sibley had taken up in Congress, or with the departments 
in Washington, other matters of importance to the people of 
Minnesota, but had not succeeded in getting favorable action 
on all of them. He did, however, succeed in getting the removal 
of the land office from St. Croix, Wisconsin, to Stillwater. It 
will be recalled that this matter had entered to some extent in 
the short campaign for delegate in 1848, The Wisconsin mem- 
bers of Congress objected to the change and the matter was 
compromised by the creation of a land district for Wisconsin 
at Willow River.^2 The people of Minnesota were especially 
interested in the construction of roads with federal assistance 
and in better mail service. Petitions asking for these things 
had been sent to Sibley and presented to Congress, but there 
was not sufficient time to get the desired results at this session 
of Congress. 

^* The opening of the land office at Willow River, six miles below Stillwater, and the 
transfer of the office from St. Croix to Stillwater were announced for June 30, 1849. Minnesota 
Register, April 27, 1849. Also Minnesota Chronicle, May 31, 1849. 



6o TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Although the act for the organization of Minnesota Terri- 
tory was approved by President Polk on March 3, 1849, the 
territorial appointments were left to the incoming adminis- 
tration. Two days after the inaguration, Sibley called upon 
President Taylor and the Secretary of State and submitted to 
them in writing an appeal that the offices of Secretary, United 
States Marshall, and Attorney should be filled with men from 
the new territory, and that the other offices be filled with men 
from the Northwest. Long before the passage of the act creat- 
ing Minnesota, aspirants for office had written to Sibley to 
enlist his support in their behalf. Sibley recommended three 
Minnesota Whigs to the administration, and two of them were 
appointed. Henry L. Moss, of Stillwater, was appointed 
United States Attorney, and Joshua L. Taylor, also of Still- 
water, was named Marshall, an appointment which he declined. 
The other appointments all went to men outside of Minnesota. 
The governorship, after having been declined by two other 
men, was accepted by Alexander Ramsey, an ex-Congressman 
from Pennsylvania. Charles K. Smith, of Ohio, became Sec- 
retary. Aaron Goodrich, of Tennessee, was appointed Chief 
Justice and David Cooper, of Maryland, and Bradley B. 
Meeker, of Kentucky, were appointed associate justices of the 
territorial court. After Joshua L. Taylor declined the office of 
Marshall, Colonel A. M. Mitchell, of Ohio, was appointed to 
the position. Governor Ramsey arrived in the Territory on 
May 27, and issued a proclamation declaring the territory duly 
organized from and after June i, 1849." 

** Minnesota Pioneer, May 31, 1849. 



CHAPTER V 
TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-1852 

The settlers in the new territory were slow in developing 
political parties. Most of the fur traders, the earliest pioneers 
in the region, had never been identified with any political 
party. Many of them, as was the case with Sibley, had never 
lived in a State and, therefore, had never had an opportunity 
of voting in elections where national issues were involved. The 
same was probably true of many of the pioneer lumbermen and 
even of some of the pioneer farmers. Men in these classes of 
society often advanced along with the frontier, leaving one of 
the older territories before its admission into the Union as a 
State and taking up their residence in a newer region. In Min- 
nesota, however, most of the leaders in the fur trade and early 
lumbering enterprises remained in the region as it was trans- 
formed from a wilderness inhabited by Indians to a settled com- 
munity enjoying political organization.^ As time passed by, 
other classes of citizens came into the region and some of them 
came from the States where they had participated in political 
activity. 

From the nature of conditions, the interests of pioneer 
settlers were local in character. The new communities were 
often hundreds of miles away from regions of compact settle- 
ment. There were few, if any, roads leading to the older settle- 
ments, and rivers constituted the principal highways for 
communication as well as trade. In a high latitude like Minne- 
sota the rivers would be frozen over for several months of the 
year and the inhabitants deprived of even this means of 
communication with the outside world. 

' H. H. Sibley, H. M. Rice, David Olmstead, H. L. Dousman, and N. W. Kittson all came 
into the upper Mississippi country as fur traders and all of them remained in the region and 
played prominent parts in the making of Minnesota. Although Dousman lived in Wisconsin 
he was interested in the affairs of Minnesota Territory. 

61 



62 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Even after territorial organization had been established, the 
questions confronting the settlers were local. Since their 
delegate in Congress could not vote they had no voice in deter- 
mining national policies. Letters and newspapers came rarely 
and irregularly to the early settlers and it was difficult for them 
to know what was happening in the realm of national politics. 
It would not be, therefore, until the territory was well advanced 
towards statehood and men other than fur traders and pioneer 
lumbermen, including lawyers and newspaper editors, had come 
in that real party organization would come into existence. By 
1849 "^^^ were beginning to speak of themselves as Whigs or 
Democrats, in some instances, especially the late comers, but 
party organization did not really come into existence for some 
years after that time. Politics were personal and factional and 
the voters of the territory lined up, for the most part, with one 
or another of the factions irrespective of the political leanings 
of the leader. 

Since the territorial appointments for Minnesota had been 
made by a Whig administration, the officers were, of course, 
all W'higs and the territorial administration was a nucleus 
around which men with Whig sympathies rallied. Most of the 
important business men living in Minnesota at the time of its 
organization were, or were to be. Democrats and a majority of 
the people in the territory appear to have had Democratic 
leanings. 2 This was probably true throughout the territorial 
period or at least until the organization of the Republican party 
drew to itself many men who had previously been Democrats. 

Since the territory was dependent upon Congress not only 
for appropriations but also for the land grants which the in- 
habitants hoped to secure for public purposes in the territory 
and since the settlers would need the assistance of friends in 
both political parties in Congress in securing such aid, it seemed 
best to most of the leaders not to draw strict party lines. As 
time went by, the opponents of the Whig administration in the 

* Ramsey to Hugh Tyler, Jan. 14, 1851, in Ramsey Papers. Also Joseph R. Brown to 
Sibley, Jan. 30, 1850. 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 62 

territory gradually grew together and nominated opposition 
tickets for members of the territorial legislature, but, during 
the period 1 849-1 852, they did not secure control. Fusion 
tickets for county offices, composed of about equal numbers of 
Whigs and "neutral" Democrats, were nominated and usually 
were elected. This group took the name of Territorial party 
and its chief purpose was, as they said, to work only for the 
best interests of the territory. The opponents of this group 
claimed that the fusion idea was a clever scheme on the part of 
the Whig minority to divide the Democrats and thus control 
the territorial legislature.^ 

The two principal factions in the politics of the period were 
the Sibley and Rice factions, most of whose followers were, or 
were to be, Democrats. It was the Sibley faction which usually 
fused with the administration W^higs. So bitter was the hostil- 
ity between Sibley and Rice that it gave color to the politics of 
the entire territorial period of Minnesota history. Henry M. 
Rice was at one time a member of the fur company of which 
Sibley was the head in the Northwest. Business differences 
arose between them and finally led to personal hostility which 
was carried over into politics and became the basis of the 
Sibley and Rice factions.^ It is difficult for the citizen of today 
to realize fully the bitterness of this controversy and the far 
reaching effects it had on territorial politics. 

Fuel was continually added to the flames of personal and 
factional politics by the newspapers which made their appear- 
ance in Minnesota in 1 849. The first of these was the Minnesota 
Pioneer of which James M. Goodhue was editor. In the first 
issue, which appeared April 28, 1849, Goodhue assumed a neu- 

3 W. D. Phillips to Sibley, Feb. i, 1849 (1850). 

* The final break between the two men seems to have come about in 1848-49 over the title 
to land in upper St. Paul. Rice had acquired land there and was selling and giving away lots 
to his followers. The fur company claimed that Rice held the lands simply for the benefit of the 
company as Kittson and others held land for it, and brought suit to recover the property, 
charging Rice with fraud. The company was not successful in the suit, but the feeling of bitter- 
ness spread to the followers of Sibley and Rice and even extended "to judges, jurors and officials 
of the court, as well as to the legislature." Gilfillan, "Early Political History of Minnesota," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 9:170. 



64 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

tral position in politics and announced that his newspaper 
would support neither of the national political parties while 
Minnesota was a territory. Goodhue was a Democrat, however 
and the Pioneer was recognized as the organ of the Democratic 
party in the premature attempt at organization in October, 

1849. ^^ ^^^ fight between Sibley and Rice became more bitter 
and the Rice faction, which it at first supported, was defeated 
in the election in November, 1849, the Pioneer lined up with 
the Sibley faction, although Goodhue was not fully trusted by 
Sibley's friends.^ The second newspaper started in the terri- 
tory was the Minnesota Chronicle, the first number of which 
was issued on May 31,1 849. This was a Whig paper and James 
Hughes was its first editor. The next paper to appear, the 
Minnesota Register ^^ was also Whig. Two Whig papers were 
more than the new territory could support and they were 
consolidated in August, 1849, and published as the Chronicle and 
Register until 1851 when this paper was absorbed by the 
Democrat. The Minnesota Democrat was started in December, 

1850, in the interest of the Rice faction with Colonel D. A. 
Robinson as its first editor. After the consolidation of the 
Chronicle and Register with the Democrat another Whig paper, 
the Minnesotian, made its appearance. The chief competition 
between these newspapers was, of course, over the territorial 
printing. Although the administration was Whig, Goodhue 
succeeded in getting his share of the printing from the very 
first and, in 1851, was made Territorial Printer. This latter 
action came as a result of a spirited fight in the territorial legis- 
lature. The Rice influence wanted to receive at least a share 
of the public printing, especially after gaining control of the 

* Goodhue was born in New Hampshire in 1810. After graduating at Amherst, he studied 
law and practiced for a time, then went to Wisconsin Territory and edited a newspaper. He 
came to Minnesota as soon as the territory was organized. He died in 1852. Goodhue was a 
vigorous writer but was inclined to be sensational and at times vindictive. Minnesota Historical 
Collections, io:a. 

*The first number of the Register, dated April 27, 1849, was printed in Cincinnati and sent 
to Minnesota for distribution. Dr. A. Randall was then the editor. He sold his interest in the 
paper to Nathaniel McLean and went to California as a "forty-niner." The paper was then 
moved to St. Paul and publication was resumed in July, 1849. 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 6^ 

Chronicle and Register^ since that paper was openly Whig. 
The Sibley faction combined with certain Whigs in the terri- 
torial legislature and gave the contract to Goodhue. This 
was looked upon, therefore, as a victory for Sibley over Rice.' 
These newspapers utilized factional politics as material for the 
editorial columns and this, together with their own fights over 
the territorial printing, added to the bitterness of the period. 

It will be recalled that Rice had been a candidate in 1848 in 
the election of a delegate from the residuum of Wisconsin 
Territory. Although defeated in that contest, he was by no 
means ready to give up the fight against Sibley. He did not, 
in fact, become an active candidate for delegate again until 
after Sibley's retirement from Congress, probably because he 
did not consider the prospects of success favorable enough, 
but his friends were continually trying to bring about Sibley's 
downfall. Rice was a skillful politician and had a large fol- 
lowing outside the fur company influence and was very popular 
with a large number of people in Minnesota. Rice moved to 
St. Paul after Sibley left for Washington in the fall of 1848 and 
began building up a personal following at that place. ^ He also 
had important business interests at Crow Wing on the upper 
Mississippi. On December i, 1848, Joseph R. Brown wrote to 
Sibley from Crow W^ing that Sibley's friends there were greatly 
elated over his election, but that "war to the knife had been 
declared against all who assisted in any way in defeating the 
'universal favorite.'" There was a rumor at that time that an 
effort would be made to organize the Democratic party in 
Minnesota with the view of favoring Rice against Sibley.^ 

^ "You will learn by this mail," Ramsey wrote to Sibley, Jan. 14, 185 1, "of the election of 
Goodhue as printer. This is one of the greatest victories that your friends have yet achieved. . . 
At the opening of the session two weeks ago I very much feared that R. would get the advantage 
of us, but recent events dissipate that fear. Rice since the election of Goodhue they say is 
terribly cast down." 

* Rice opened a business house in St. Paul in the fail of 1848 and sp«nt most of his time 
there. He did not move his family from Mendota until June, 1849, ^^ ^^^ '^''"^ '^'^^'^ Ramsey 
came to St. Paul from his stay with Sibley at Mendota. Rice and Ramsey descended the river 
together in two large bark canoes managed by voyagenrs. Minnesota Chronicle, June 28, 1849. 

* Walker to Sibley, Nov. 7, 1848. 



66 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Sibley's success in Washington in securing territorial 
organization gave him such popularity with the people of 
Minnesota that no candidate opposed him for election as the 
first regular delegate from the new territory. A plan to organize 
the Democratic party had been carried along by the Rice 
faction, but the time was not ripe to bring it into the open. The 
first territorial election was held on August i, 1849, ^"^ the 
politicians concerned themselves principally with candidates 
for the legislature. On the surface, party lines were not drawn 
and the leading men in the territory declared themselves in 
favor of "neutrality" in politics, but the different factions tried 
to get as many of their friends elected as possible. Both Rice 
and Sibley were active in the campaign for members of the 
legislature.^" 

The Minnesota Register announced Sibley's election in the 
following editorial: "The unanimous voice of the citizens of the 
territory, by which Mr. Sibley is called to represent them in 
Congress is a meritorious compliment to that gentleman 
highly creditable to our people. While partisan warfare is 
raging hot and fierce in the States, we in Minnesota are attend- 
ing to our own business, and rewarding our best men, without 
regard to their political opinions. This is as it should be. Let 
us go on this way for a few years, and Uncle Sam will not be 
unmindful of all our wants."^^ The Pioneer did not mention 
Sibley's election until August 23, when the following editorial 
appeared: "The Hon. Mr. Sibley was elected delegate to Con- 
gress by the unanimous voice of Minnesota. As he was the 
choice of the whole people, without the least opposition, we 
almost forgot to mention that he was elected." 

In September, 1849, the Rice faction decided to come into 
the open with the plan to organize the Democratic party in 
Minnesota. A caucus was held at the home of H. M. Rice on 
Monday evening, September 24, 1849, ^^^ ^ committee was 

'"Rice to McKenny, July 13, 1849; and G. H. Pond to Sibley, July 16, 1849, both in 
Sibley Papers. 

" Minnesota Register, Aug. 4, 1849. 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 67 

appointed to call a mass meeting of the democracy of Minne- 
sota. This committee sent out the following call: "Believing 
that the safety and integrity of our party and the paramount 
interests of our infant territory demand that the party lines 
be henceforth drawn, we extend a cordial invitation to our 
Democratic brethern in all parts of the Territory to assemble at 
St. Paul on Saturday the 20th day of October, to take measures 
to secure permanent thorough organization."^^ This meeting 
was under the control of the Rice faction. Some Sibley men 
were named on the different committees, but the majority of 
the most important committees were Rice men. The resolu- 
tions reported to and adopted by the meeting struck hard at 
the policy of "neutrality" in territorial politics. Among other 
things, it was resolved "That we have no confidence in the 
profession of those who raise the cry of political neutrality in 
the Territory; that it is a specious and artful attempt to begile 
portions of the stronger party into the support of men and 
measures emanating wholly from the weaker one, and exclu- 
sively for the furtherance of partisan purposes, and that the in- 
terests of the people at large require that all such attempts be 
thwarted at once, which can only be effectually done by prompt, 
decided, and united action by the Democracy of this most 
beautiful land." The resolutions expressed "undiminished and 
abiding confidence" in the principles of Jefferson, Madison, 
Monroe, Jackson, and Polk, and stated that the Democrats 
of Minnesota were "opposed to a national bank, to a protective 
tariff as such, to the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of 
public lands, to a latitudinary construction of the Constitution, 
and to the abrogation of the veto power." Another resolution, 
offered from the floor and adopted, declared "That in organizing 
the Democratic party it is important that our trusts should 
not be placed in any but those who are openly and unequivo- 
cally Democrats, fearlessly advocating Democratic principles 
at all times." This last resolution was evidently intended to 
force "neutral" Democrats into the organization. 

^"^ Minnesota Pioneer, Oct. 25, 1849. 



bo TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

While this attempt to organize the Democratic party was 
premature, it did have momentous consequences for Sibley for 
it was at this meeting that his affiliation with the Democratic 
party was first announced. He had been invited to attend the 
meeting but was unable to do so, he said, because of pressing 
business engagements. He did, however, send a letter which 
was read at the meeting. In this letter Sibley stated that he 
had hoped that party lines would not be drawn in Minnesota, 
but, since they "were already virtually drawn," he would 
avail himself of this opportunity of stating his individual senti- 
ments. "I am a Democrat of the Jeffersonian school," he wrote, 
"and as such I stand ready at all proper times and places to 
take my place under the banner of the party. It is especially 
proper that I should define my position now, as a false state- 
ment has been circulated about that I was a Whig, and elected 
as such." He stated, however, that, since he had been elected 
without reference to party, he would preserve his previous 
neutrality in the discharge of his public duties. ^^ 

The men who participated in this meeting seemed to beheve 
that they had put an end to neutrality in territorial politics 
and caused the following notice to appear in the next issue of 
the Pioneer: "Died suddenly, in Minnesota, on the 20th inst. 
at 9 o'clock P.M. the 'Territorial Party.' Disease, delirium 
tremens, induced by a secret habit of imbibing Whig spirits." 

This organization of the Democratic party, and especially 
Sibley's letter, was bitterly denounced by the Whig members 
of the Territorial party. "On Sunday it was hazardous to run 
the gauntlet on Third Street," wrote Goodhue in an editorial 
in the Pioneer. "The Territorial Party are awfully flustered. 
The letter of the Hon. Mr. Sibley to the Democratic Conven- 
tion, announcing himself a Jeffersonian Democrat, took them 
raking like a charge of duck shot from a French shot gun dis- 
charged at a flock of wild geese in a fog. Never, in our opinion, 
did a party sleep under a mine of surer destruction than that 
which Federalism had prepared in Minnesota for the Democ- 

^^ Minnesota Pioneer, Oct. 25, 1849. 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 



69 



racy. Long may it be before the party of human hopes and 
human progress here shall again lie down in dalliance with 
Federalism." The attitude of the Whigs towards Sibley was 
well shown in an editorial in the Chronicle of November 3: 
"Mr. Sibley has a perfect right to form and express his own 
opinions when and where he may deem proper. He was elected, 
according to his own showing, without reference to party poli- 
tics, and has graciously promised to act out his term without 
politics. After that, look out, the Fur will fly. Pending the 
election, so far as the subject was mooted, he was claimed by 
both. Rushing into the arena at this particular time, without 
any necessity, we think, instead of increasing his influence at 
home or in Washington will have a most decided contrary 
effect." This prophecy was to be fulfilled. 




HINNESOTA TERRITORY 

SHCUINO 

COUNTY BCtlNQARIES IN 
18M. 



The first territorial legislature was in session from September 
to November, 1849, ^^d, on October 27, enacted a law creating 



70 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

nine new countries, three of which were declared to be fully 
organized. These countries were Washington, Ramsey, and 
Benton, 1^ This law provided for the appointment of county 
officers by the Governor to hold office until a regular election 
could be held. This election was in November, 1849, ^^^ gave 
the first opportunity to test the strength of the recently organ- 
ized Democratic party. The next move on the part of Rice, 
was, therefore, to put a Democratic ticket, composed mostly 
of his followers, into the field in Ramsey County, the county-, 
seat of which was St. Paul.^^ The men recently appointed by 
Governor Ramsey were candidates for re-election, and some of 
them were "neutral" Democrats who had belonged to the 
Territorial party. The "organization" Democrats charged 
that the Whigs had secretly organized during the session of the 
legislature and by that action had forced organization upon 
the Democrats. 

The "organization" Democrats of Ramsey County met in 
convention on November 17 to nominate candidates for county 
offices. The Rice faction, by calling the convention to order 
promptly at the appointed time before all of the delegates had 
arrived, succeeded in nominating its slate. ^^ Goodhue sup- 
ported this ticket through the columns of the Pioneer, but, 
in spite of all that he and the Rice faction could do, the ticket 
was badly defeated. The followers of Sibley did not support 
the Rice ticket and they, together with the Whigs, succeeded 
in electing, with one or two exceptions, the appointees of 
Governor Ramsey.^' 

^* Laws 0/ Minnesota, 1849, P- 9- (^^s accompanying map for boundaries.) 

'^ J. R. Brown wrote to Sibley, Dec. 21, 1849: "The object then was to ascertain how the 
cJiijue would stand with the people, if a nomination (of Rice for delegate) could be obtained 
hereafter." 

'® "It was a pretty smart attempt," Henry Lambert wrote to Sibley, Nov. 27, "at a gag 
under the name of party organization to sustain the R(ice) influence. A few met at the ap- 
pointed time. . . . They had everything their own way and when Brown, Rollins, & us got 
there they had little else to do than to look on. Naturally they felt indignant." 

*' After the election, \V. H. Forbes wrote to Sibley giving an account of the meeting and 
campaign. "You have heard ere this the result of our county election. The peoples' ticket 
won the day and we buried on that day I trust the last effort of that Rice faction. . . . They 
had the impudence to call themselves the democratic pa:ty. I walked up to their nominating 
convention and saw 87 votes cast when there was not sixty persons present and they from all 
parts of the Territory." 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 7 1 

The Whigs were inclined to look upon this election as a 
Whig victory in spite of the fact that there was no open organ- 
ization of that party in the territory. They were very bitter 
against Sibley for his letter of October 20 and gave him and 
his friends little credit for the victory. The seeds which were to 
bear fruit in the campaign of 1850 had now been sown. Sibley 
had not used his influence in favor of the Democratic ticket, 
and thereby caused more hostility than ever between himself 
and Rice. On the other hand, the Whigs had denounced him 
for abandoning neutrality. Both of these facts were to have 
influence when Sibley came up for re-election in 1850. 

Sibley announced his intention of running as a neutral 
candidate in a letter of July 26, 1850, to Governor Ramsey. 
"It is with unafi^ected reluctance," he wrote, "that I consent 
to run again, and I only do so because I conscientiously believe 
that certain parties wish to gain control in the Territory to 
efl^ect their own selfish ends. To defeat the united cliques of 
Rice, Mitchell, the Ewings, and others of a hke stamp I will 
make any personal sacrifice of my own comfort and incHna- 
tions. After what has been done for M. (Minnesota) at this 
session, in the face of every opposing influence and during a 
period when nobody else has accomplished anything, it would 
seem strange indeed if the people should decide against me in 
September." Sibley hoped that Mitchell would be the candi- 
date against him. He wanted to come to Minnesota during 
the campaign but feared that he would be unable to do so 
because important measures were still pending in Congress 
which needed his constant attention. 

Colonel A. M. Mitchell, the Whig Marshall of the Territory 
was nominated by a convention which called itself the Terri- 
torial party, on July 31, 1850. This convention seems to have 
been called as a Whig convention and was to have been com- 
posed of delegates from the organized counties of Washington, 
Ramsey, and Benton. Apparently the Mitchell forces were 
not willing to abide by the probable action of the convention 
as it would have been composed with the delegates chosen by 



72 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the Whigs. The Mitchell followers, together with the Rice 
faction among the Democrats, hurriedly elected twelve dele- 
gates to the convention which met the same night and, assisted 
by the anti-fur-company delegation from St. Anthony, nomi- 
nated Mitchell. The majority of the St. Croix delegation and 
the delegates from the prairie .section refused to go into the 
convention when they saw how things were going, and many of 
the leading Whigs announced that they would not support 
Mitchell. Even Furber, who had been so bitter against Sibley, 
announced that he would support Sibley before he would 
Mitchell. i« 

This convention which nominated Mitchell made the 
American Fur Company a leading issue in the campaign. A 
resolution adopted by the convention declared "That we have 
in our midst a dangerous monopoly known as the 'American 
Fur Company,' wielding a powerful influence, injurious to and 
destructive of the community at large, prepared by any means 
to retain their baneful influences at the sacrifice of the welfare 
and independence of our people; and we do therefore pledge 
ourselves, and call upon our constituents to assist in checking 
its power. "18 A letter was sent to Mitchell notifying him of 
his nomination and he replied immediately accepting it. 

Sibley's friends recognized that the union between the Rice 
and Mitchell factions was a formidable combination and that 
it would require a hard fight to defeat it.^" Sibley's candidacy 
was publicly announced in the Pioneer of August 8, 1850. 
Goodhue had not yet abandoned the Democratic organization, 
and he simply announced that he had been requested to say 
that Sibley would be a candidate. He regretted, he said, that 
party lines would probably not be drawn during the campaign 
and that, in the absence of party issues, politics would be per- 
sonal and factional and were certain to be bitter. "Weorgan- 

'* Potts to Sibley, Aug. i, 1850. 
"^^ Minnesota Pioneer, Aug. 8, 1850. 

^Ramsey to Sibley, Aug. 6, 1850. Ramsey wrote: "Mitchell has become a candidate 
with, to my surprise, great prospects of success." 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 73 

ized," he wrote, "neither a Sibley party nor a Rice party, but 
the Democratic Party.'' He called upon the Democratic com- 
mittee to call a convention and gave notice that, if they did 
not do so within a week, he would "feel at liberty to nominate 
a good, staunch, unflinching Democrat." "In regard to the 
mongrel nomination already made," he continued, "we have 
no sympathy with it or with any that may be made in immi- 
tation of it. We recognize no distinctions based upon peljry, 
and have nothing to do with their contests." 

No satisfactory call was issued by the Democratic commit- 
tee, and Goodhue, in an editorial of two and one half columns 
in the Pioneer of August 15, came out strongly for Sibley whose 
name was placed at the head of the editorial with the sub- 
heading, "An honest man is the noblest work of God." Good- 
hue gave a resume of Sibley's work in Washington, stating 
that Sibley was "the man by whose agency Minnesota was 
quarried and hewn into an organized territory." Sibley's 
reliability and his standing in the community, before the fight 
against him was begun, were emphasized, and the people of 
Minnesota were urged to "Hold fast to that which is true, tried, 
and valuable. Do not exchange a delegate for a chance of a 
delegate. Be deliberate and honest; be wise and not fools." 

A group of Whigs met in convention at Stillwater on August 
10, 1850, and nominated Colonel N. Greene Wilcox for dele- 
gate. This was the nearest that the Whigs came to organizing 
that party throughout the territory during the period under 
consideration. 21 It was not successful, however, and, on 
August 18, Wilcox declined the nomination and announced that 
he favored the candidacy of Mitchell. 

Still another nomination was made. On August 10, David 
Olmstead was nominated by a convention in St. Paul. This 
meeting approved the administration of Governor Ramsey, 
probably hoping for the support of the territorial administra- 
tion, although Olmstead himself was a Democrat. The Chroni- 
cle and Register approved Olmstead's nomination. "For moral 

^' Minnesota Pioneer, Aug. 15, 1850. Also Chronicle and Register, Aug. 12, 1850. 



-74 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

worth, ability, and long tried integrity," the editorial stated, 
"he (Olmstead) has no superior in the Territory, and if his 
friends do their duty he will be elected."" 

The campaign resolved itself, therefore, into a three- 
cornered fight between factions. Sibley was unmercifully de- 
nounced for his connection with the fur company. It has been 
said of this campaign that the real issue was "Fur versus anti- 
fur." Much was said during the campaign about the "Dan- 
gerous monopoly" and its "baneful influence" in the new 
territory. This argument, if such it may be called, was ably 
answered through the columns of the Pioneer. In an article of 
two and one-half columns, signed by "A Whig," it was denied 
that the fur company was a monopoly, and it was even defended 
as being a good thing for the territory. "If there was a hundred 
fur companies in the territory," said the article, "so much the 
better. I am sorry to see this hue and cry against monopolies 
raised here in Minnesota. Those who have raised it, and who 
join in it, cannot be aware of the origin of the course they are 
pursuing. Monopolies have ever been the theme of demagogues 
and unprincipled men in all past time. The truth is, and there 
is no disguising the fact, this cry against monopolies is a pitiful 
humbug, originating with the wicked to impose on the ignorant. 
The disappointments of a few, the ambitions of some, and the 
prejudices of others, are put together; a little froth is made 
about election times; it serves its purpose and then sinks to 
nothing, whence it came, and there is no more of it till another 
election. "23 

The same line of argument was followed in an editorial of 
one and one-half columns in the Pioneer of August 22. Goodhue 
gave an account of fur company methods in Minnesota and 
denied that the fur company with which Sibley was connected 
was a monopoly, since anyone who could take out a license 
could take part in the fur trade. "Unmasked," he wrote, "it 

^ Chronicle and Register, Aug. ii, 1850. 
^^ Minnesota Pioneer, Aug. 15, 1850. 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 75 

(the cry against monoplies) is nothing more or less than an 
attempt to array labor against capital. It seeks to stir up 
envy. It is an old trick of demagogues attempted in a new 
Territory." 

The friends of Olmstead denounced Goodhue for not sup- 
porting what they were pleased to call the Democratic candi- 
date. Goodhue defended himself and Sibley in an able editorial 
of August 22. He affirmed that Sibley had been announced as 
a candidate before the meeting of the convention that had 
nominated Olmstead and that Sibley "had never pledged him- 
self to be tricked out of office by any sliding under of cards or 
the dextrous turning up of Jack'' \ Goodhue declared that the 
convention itself "was all arranged expressly for Mr. Olmstead. 
The notices were printed, the wires laid, and the whole scheme 
concocted before Mr. Sibley's friends had any notice of it. 
Was Mr. Sibley to be led into this palpable trap? If our friends 
in Washington county had not been shamefully duped in this 
business, Mr. Olmstead would never have been thrust up as a 
candidate; he won't know after election that he was a candi- 
date, without reference to th.t. poll-books^ under the head ''Scsit- 
tering."24 

As the campaign progressed it became evident that the 
chief issue was "anything to beat Sibley." A conference was 
arranged between the Olmstead and Mitchell forces and Olm- 
stead was induced to withdraw from the contest. He seems to 
have done this against the advice of some of his most influential 
friends. Joseph R. Brown, although a personal friend of Sibley, 
was supporting Olmstead because he was running as a Demo- 
crat. He urged Olmstead to stay in the race, believing, so he 
wrote to Sibley, that Olmstead would get votes in Benton 
county which would otherwise go to Mitchell.^^ The Chronicle 
and Register^ which had supported Olmstead, also opposed his 
withdrawal. It accused the Sibley faction of treachery in that 
they had promised, so it was claimed, to enter the "Democratic" 

^* Minnesota Pioneer, Aug. 22, 1850. 
^ J. R. Brown to Sibley, Aug. 28, 1850. 



76 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

convention which nominated Olmstead. "The faithless course 
pursued by these gentlemen," said the editorial, "in bolting 
the nomination when it was ascertained that their personal 
preferences could not be gratified, and the boasts subsequently 
so often repeated, that with two candidates in the field to 
divide the American vote, they could with their French vote 
elect Mr. Sibley, were undoubtedly the causes which deter- 
mined Mr. Olmstead in withdrawing. "^e 

Sibley remained in Washington during the campaign, but 
he kept in touch with the course of events in Minnesota. 
Governor Ramsey wrote to him often and kept him informed 
in regard to political conditions at home. The election was 
held on September 2, 1850, and, as was to be expected after 
such an exciting campaign, did not pass off without some dis- 
order. Joseph R. Brown wrote to Sibley that there had been 
many attempts to buy votes and to intimidate voters, especially 
in the "upper town" of St. Paul and with the French Canadi- 
ans, among whom a circular had been scattered broadcast 
charging that Sibley had sacrificed their claims in the Military 
Reserve to his own advantage and to the advantage of the fur 
company.^^ Goodhue gave the following account of the election 
in an editorial in theP/o^^d'^rof September 2: "Never before have 
we witnessed an election, as hotly contested as our election last 
Monday. If an empire had been at stake, more zeal, more 
influence, more active, unscrupulous means and more inde- 
fatigable exertions could not have been called into existence. 
Hope, fear, avarice, ambition, personal obligations, money, 
whiskey, oysters, patronage, contracts, champaign, loans, 
the promise of favors, jealousy, personal prejudice, envy, 
everything that could be tortured into a motive has been 
pressed into the canvass. Mr. Sibley was absent in Washing- 
ton. This was a great disadvantage to him in an election, 

* Chronicle and Register, Sept. 2, 1850. No evidence has been found of such statements 
having been made during the campaign by Sibley's friends. Good politicians would not openly 
talk that way. The French vote was for Sibley, however, and two opposing candidates would 
have favored him. 

2' Brown to Sibley, Sept. 4, 1850. 



TERRITORIAL POLITICS, 1848-I852 77 

turning as it did, so much upon personal preference. Any other 
man in Minnesota, being a candidate, and distant hundreds 
of miles from the canvass, would have been signally defeated. 
Colonel Mitchell and Captain Olmstead were both here, ac- 
tively electioneering; as well as Mr. H. M. Rice, a man of un- 
limited energy and great resources. . . . Bets amounting to 
hundreds of dollars were made; and much larger sums would 
have been bet, if the Winnebago payment had not been delayed. 
Both sides were willing to bet anything, to the last shirt. One 
of Mitchell's friends w^ore his bosom-pin stuck, not in his shirt 
bosom, but into the flesh upon his breast; and would have bet 
off the pin itself, upon the slightest banter. We desire never 
to see another election, so wicked and corrupt; but whenever 
men attempt to elevate a man to office by corrupting the foun- 
tains of popular will, we only ask to see him as signally defeated 
as Colonel Mitchell has been by the untied exertions of good 
men of all parties." 

The factional fights in Minnesota continued during most of 
the territorial period. This was particularly true in the terri- 
torial legislature in the session of 1851. The factions were 
almost evenly divided and a sharp contest took place before 
organization was effected. "It is said in the Council," William 
Holcombe wrote to Sibley on January 8, 1851, "that before 
the President (of the Council) was elected, the Capitol was 
located, the Penitentiary was located, the Public Printing dis- 
posed of, and all the minor offices down even to firemen." 
This was the time when Goodhue was made Territorial Printer, 
as related in a former connection. 

As time passed by, it appeared that Rice was gaining 
strength. "There is no use denying the fact," John H. Stevens 
wrote to Sibley, "that most of the new comers are Rice men. 
He can feed them on promises, by which course he can make 
more than by paying ready cash down. Now the question 
arises what course shall we take to secure the emigrant vote?" 
The feeling also became stronger that the Democrats should 
lay aside their factional fights and effect a real organization. 



78 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Friends of both Sibley and Rice tried to bring about a recon- 
ciliation between them and succeeded to some extent in doing 
so. 28 Sibley retired from Congress at the expiration of his 
term, and Rice was elected to succeed him. Sibley's greatest 
strength during this period seems to have been due to the fur 
company influence. As conducted by Sibley, the fur company's 
methods were popular with the early settlers, many of whom 
Sibley had befriended at different times. The company had 
been considerably discredited, however, while Sibley was in 
Washington,29 and the fight between Sibley and Rice, which 
was after all largely a fight between rival trading interests, had 
brought it into an unfavorable light. With the increase of 
population, the new comers were acquainted with the company 
methods only as conducted by Dr. C. W. Borup, who was in 
charge while Sibley was in Washington, and they were naturally 
prejudiced against it. When they outnumbered the early 
settlers, Sibley lost his great influence in the territory. The 
high tide of Sibley's popularity during the period of his congres- 
sional career was in 1849 when he returned with territorial 
organization and while his politics were yet unknown. His in- 
fluence then waned until he closed up his connection with the 
fur company, which he did soon after the expiration of his 
term in Congress. His retirement to private life was not per- 
manent, however, and greater honors, both civil and military, 
were in store for him. 

^^ Rice to Sibley, Feb. 3, 1853. 

^ Potts to Sibley, April 17, 1850; John H. Stevens to Sibley, May 22, 1850; and N. W. 
Kittson to Fred Sibley, Aug. 12, 1850, all in Sibley Papers. 



CHAPTER VI 
THE NEEDS OF A NEW TERRITORY 

Providing territorial organization was only the beginning 
of federal legislation in behalf of the inhabitants of a frontier 
region. The people of Minnesota wanted better postal service, 
appropriations or land grants for public buildings, roads, 
schools, a university, and even telegraph lines and railroads. 
Indian treaties for the cession of land for settlement by the 
rapidly increasing population and to attract a still larger immi- 
gration were ardently desired. On all of these measures Sibley 
worked with the same energy and skill as had characterized 
his efforts to secure territorial organization during the pre- 
ceding session of Congress, and he faced even greater difficul- 
ties in their accomplishment. 

The slavery question was being agitated more bitterly 
than ever before and claimed more time and attention on the 
part of Congress. This struggle began on the first day of the 
session over the organization of the House, where no party had 
a majority. There were 112 Democrats, 105 Whigs, and 13 
Free-Soilers. The latter, therefore, held the balance of power 
and could prevent or delay the organization of the House. 
This they proceeded to do and it was not until December 22, 
1849, ^^^ ^^ ^^^ sixty-third roll-call, that a Speaker was chosen 
and this was accompHshed by a plurahty rather than a majority 
vote.^ It required about another month before the House was 
completely organized and ready for the transaction of business. 
By this time both sides to the slavery controversy were fully 
aroused and the discussions which finally led to the Compromise 
of 1850 were well under way. It was evident, therefore, that 
it would be very difficult to get the attention of Congress for 

1 Congressional Globe, 31 Cong, i Sess., p. 66. 

79 



8o TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the consideration of measures desired by an infant territory 
on the northwestern frontier. 

Provision had been made in the appropriation to carry 
the Minnesota Act into effect, passed during the last hours of 
the preceeding session, for the establishment of a temporary 
capital at St. Paul, including money for the erection of tempo- 
rary buildings. No provision was made, however, for a peni- 
tentiary, an institution of vital importance to a new territory. 
There was no place within the limits of Minnesota for the con- 
finement of criminals. The military authorities at Fort Snelling 
consented to receive and confine criminals as a temporary 
expedient,- but they were not required to do so and the people 
of Minnesota were greatly concerned for an appropriation to 
enable them to care for criminals in a proper institution. Inci- 
dentally, too, it would help satisfy one of the new towns in the 
territory if the penitentiary could be secured for it, in return 
for the capital being elsewhere. Sibley secured an appropriation 
of |2o,ooo for the erection of a penitentiary. He encountered 
some opposition from the "ultra-strict constructionists," but, 
as he wrote, he had "paved the way for success by long and 
persevering electioneering previously."^ 

Another matter of considerable importance to Minnesota 
was the adequate codification of the law applicable within its 
limits. The first territorial legislature had made provision for 
the application of the Wisconsin code of laws until and except as 
the same should be amended or repealed by the Minnesota 
legislature. Since there was not sufficient time during the 
sixty day session to prepare a full code, Congress was memori- 
alized for permission to extend the next session of the territorial 
legislature to ninety days. Sibley finally secured the passage 
of such a bill and the laws were properly codified in 1851.* 

- Ramsey to Sibley, March 31, 1850. 

' Sibley to Ramsey, May 30, 1850, in Ramsey Papers. Also Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 
I Sess., 1074, 1080, 1 169. Additonal appropriations were secured at the next session to complete 
the buildings. Congressional Globe, 32 Cong, i Sess., 102. During the five sessions of Sibley's 
Congressional career some ^285,673.43 were appropriated for Minnesota. 

* Congressional Globe, 31 Cong, i Sess., 983, 1016, 1206, 1376. 



NEEDS OF A NEW TERRITORY 8 1 

On January 3, 1850, Sibley gave notice of his intention to 
introduce certain bills for the benefit of Minnesota Territory, 
dealing chiefly with the establishment of post-roads. The sub- 
ject of communication with the outside world was of vital 
concern to the people of Minnesota and most of the letters to 
Sibley during this period contained references to, or definite 
suggestions regarding, the laying out of post-roads and the 
securing of more frequent mail service. The territorial legis- 
lature memorialized Congress on the subject and the memorial 
had been presented by Sibley. The population was rapidly 
increasing and the people believed that they were entitled to 
more frequent and more regular service. The Post Office 
Department, on the other hand, thought that the receipts of 
the post offices in Minnesota were not sufficient to warrant 
the increased expenditure.^ On February 12, 1850, Sibley 
wrote to the Postmaster General urging additional mails and 
on February 28, he was informed that the postmaster 
at Galena, as well as the one at St. Paul, had been directed to 
send mail on packet boats as often as they should run. The 
postage was to be two cents for each letter and one cent for 
each newspaper and was to be paid by the postmaster receiving 
the mail from the boat. The contractor on the mail route 
between St. Paul and Stillwater was directed to run one addi- 
tional weekly trip over the route. ^ Not only was more frequent 
service wanted but there was a strong demand for additional 
routes to reach the settlements not already served. Conse- 
quently, on February 6, 1850, Sibley introduced a resolution 
instructing the Committee on Post Roads "to inquire into the 
expediency of establishing a route from Point Douglas, via 
Cottage Grove, Red Rock, St. Paul, and the Falls of St. 
Anthony, to Fort Gaines; and also to Long Prairie and Pem- 
bina; and from Point Douglas, via Stillwater, Marine Mills, 



*The First Assistant Postmaster General wrote to Sibley, Feb. 3, 1850, declining to 
additional service because of excess of cost over receipts. 

^ Minnnesota Pioneer, April 2, 1850. Chronicle and Register, April 6, 1850. The latter 
paper announced this as "the best news of the season." 



82 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Falls of St. Croix, and Pockegowa, to Fon du Lac." Closely 
associated with this question was the construction of roads to 
and in Minnesota. These were intended to facilitate the 
transportation of the mails, the movement of troops and mili- 
tary supplies, and to stimulate materially immigration to the 
territory. Some roads were constructed, of course, by the 
territory but, since its revenues were necessarily limited, the 
settlers believed that Congress should give assistance. The 
newspapers of the territory agitated the question and petitions 
and memorials were sent to Congress asking for appropriations 
for this purpose.^ It was believed that a more direct route 
could be followed between Milwaukee and St, Paul and save 
many miles of travel between the two places. It was reported 
that fairly good roads had been built from eastern Wisconsin 
as far as Stevens Point and, although no survey had been made, 
it was believed that the gap between these roads and Minnesota 
was not over 175 miles and that a road could be constructed 
for 15,000.^ Sibley introduced a bill providing for the con- 
struction of five roads in Minnesota and carrying appropria- 
tions for 140,000. These roads were to follow the plans for the 
post roads, mentioned above, or very nearly so, and they were 
to be constructed "under the direction of the Secretary of War, 
pursuant to contracts made by him."^ Although the bill was 
the occasion for a lengthy debate over internal improvements, 
it was finally passed.^" As usual in such cases the original esti- 
mate of the cost of construction fell short of the actual cost and 
further appropriations were necessary in order to complete the 
work. 

Closely associated with the construction of roads was the 
question of the improvement of the Mississippi river as a 

^ "Is Congress aware," Goodhue wrote in an editorial, "that the road up the river from 
St. Paul, for more than loo miles, is absolutely thronged with travel, even now, in the dead of 
winter?" Pioneer, Jan. 2, 1850, p. 2. 

* It was expected that such a road would greatly stimulate immigration. "As the public 
lands are mostly taken up in this part of Wisconsin, attention is directed towards Minnesota 
and if a good route could be opened to the Territory, there would be a large emigration of eastern 
people within the next two years." Henning to Sibley, March 26, 1850. 

' Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. I Sess., 1089. 

" Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. I Sess., 814; 32 Cong. 2 Sess., 610. 



NEEDS OF A NEW TERRITORY 83 

highway of trade and communication. As early as 1850, the 
settlers petitioned Congress for appropriations for the survey 
of the Mississippi above the Falls of St. Anthony with a view 
to its improvement, and during the following session of Con- 
gress they petitioned for an appropriation of $10,000 to remove 
obstructions in the navigation of the river between Fort 
Snelling and St. Anthony Falls. Sibley's efforts in behalf of 
these measures were not rewarded with success and the attempt 
to make St. Anthony Falls the head of navigation on the Missis- 
sippi was left to a later generation." 

The settlers in Minnesota also attempted to secure appro- 
priations or land grants for the construction of a telegraph line 
from St. Paul to Prairie du Chien and also for the construction 
of railroads. They not only wanted railroads to establish 
connections with the East but these pioneers along the upper 
Mississippi filled with the enthusiasm and optimism charac- 
teristic of the frontier were, as early as 1850, dreaming and 
seeing visions of a railroad to the Pacific. It was at this time 
that California was admitted into the Union and plans were 
being made to construct a line across the plains and over the 
mountains to bring her nearer in point of time to her sister 
States. Sibley had been interested in a Pacific railroad since 
1849 when he had been invited to attend a national convention 
in St. Louis "to deliberate upon the expediency and necessity 
of connecting, at an early date, the Pacific with the Mississippi 
valley, by means of a railroad and magnetic telegraph. "^^ 
Goodhue, at different times during 1850, advocated the con- 
struction of a Pacific railroad and argued in favor of making 
St. Paul the eastern terminus. He pointed out that the dis- 
tance from St. Paul to the Pacific was shorter than from St. 
Louis to San Francisco and that it would be far easier and safer 
to build the road westward from Minnesota. He favored 

'' The problem was not really solved until the completion of the high dam near Fort 
Snelling in 1917 which finally makes possible the realization of the dream of the early pioneers, 
although as yet there is very little use made of the municipal pier at Minneapolis. 

'^A printed invitation to Sibley, dated August 28, 1849, is in the Sibley Papers. The 
invitation was in circular form and gave arguments in favor of the construction of such a road. 



84 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

building it along the route from Red River of the North used by- 
Hudson's Bay Company.^' 

Minnesota was more immediately interested, however, in 
a railroad to connect with the lines v/hich were at that time 
being pushed westward from Chicago towards the Mississippi,^* 
and thus secure a transportation system which would be in 
operation throughout the year. Editorials in the local news- 
papers stated that the natural dependence of Minnesota upon 
St. Louis would soon be severed and that the railroad from 
Chicago to the Mississippi would "revolutionize the course of 
trade in the Northwest. "^^ The people should look forward to 
this situation, it was urged, and favor the building of railroads. 
Bills were introduced into Congress to grant alternate sections 
of land, similar to the lUinois Central grant of that same year, 
to construct a railroad from the Falls of St. Croix to Lake 
Superior, one from Green Bay to St. Paul, and one from Mil- 
waukee to the Mississippi.^^ These grants would be made to 
Wisconsin, of course, but were of interest to the people of 
Minnesota. Minnesota was also interested in a railroad entirely 
within the territory. "Our railroad bill," Sibley wrote to 
Ramsey, "giving us alternate sections on each side of the road 
for six miles, from the western boundary of the Territory (the 
Missouri river) via Lake Traverse and the Big Bend of the St. 
Peters to the Iowa line in the direction of Dubuque passed the 
Senate yesterday. Its fate in the House is still doubtful. "^^ 
Sibley worked hard for the passage of the bill by the House and 
for a time it seemed that he would succeed. On August 15, 
1850, he wrote to Ramsey that he had secured a special meeting 
of the Committee on Public Lands and that it had agreed "by 
unanimous vote" to report the bill to the House. "I am now 

^^ Pioneer, May 9, 1850, and Dec. 5, 1850. 

^* The line between Chicago and the Mississippi was completed in 1854. Its opening was 
celebrated by an excursion up the Mississippi to St. Paul, participated in by leading men of the 
Dountry, including ex-president Fillmore and George Bancroft. West, Sibley, 214. 

^^ Chronicle and Register, April 20, 1850. 

^* Congressional Globe, 31 Cong, i Sess., 1456. 

^^ Sibley to Ramsey, July 19, 1850, in Ramsey Papers. Also Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 
I Sess., 1409. 



<i 



NEEDS OF A NEW TERRITORY 85 

sanguine of its passage," Sibley wrote, "as it has already been 
passed by the Senate." A month later, however, he decided to 
let the bill go over to the next session of Congress. He wrote 
to Ramsey on September 15, that the bill had been unanimously 
reported back to the House by the Committee on Public Lands 
but that he feared to bring it forward "because of an unfavor- 
able vote on the Tariff yesterday in the House, which has so 
enraged the advocates of that measure in the northern and 
middle States, that they swear they will go against any and 
all grants of land to the West for making roads," Thus an 
unfavorable vote on the Tariff, a matter in which Sibley had 
no voice, caused a postponement of action on the bill and meant 
a delay of several years in the construction of railroads in 
Minnesota. The people of the territory did not give up hope 
of securing land grants, however, and Sibley introduced similar 
bills at later sessions of Congress, but, in spite of his efforts in 
their behalf, none of them were passed during this period.'^ 
The pioneers of a new region who were laying the founda- 
tions of a new State were always anxious about the land policy 
of the federal government and especially the disposal of lands 
within the boundaries of the proposed commonwealth. The 
ideas of pre-emption and home-stead laws originated in the 
West and western men were the most earnest advocates of a 
change in the public land policy whereby the public domain 
would be used to encourage settlement rather than as a source 
of revenue. Sibley's ideas on this important question were 
typical of western men. He made an important speech in 
Congress on April 24, 1852, in which he discussed the homestead 
bill and the bill proposing to donate lands in the territories to 
the older States for the care of the indigent insane. ^^ Some of 
Sibley's arguments on the homestead bill had been made before 
his time and were made over and over again before the final 
passage of the homestead bill in 1862. Sibley argued that some 

''SamuelThatcher toSibley, Jan. 2, 1851. A\so Congressional Globe, ^"^ Cong, i Sess.,21; 
and 32 Cong. 2 Sess., 198. 

^' Congressional Globe, 32 Coiig. I Sess., App. 485-488. 



86 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

change in the land system was necessary and that the laws 
should be so modified as "to produce a greater amount of 
practical good to the people." The passage of a homestead 
law, he asserted, would injure no class of our citizens. He met 
the argument that had been directed against the bill that the 
decrease in the receipts from the sales of public lands would 
mean increased taxation by maintaining that free lands would 
increase settlement, which in turn would increase importations 
and thus bring larger amounts of money into the United States 
Treasury from import duties. The increase in the sales of 
public land had not kept pace with the increase in population, 
he asserted, and the high prices of land had "forced thousands 
upon thousands to remain in the corrupting atmosphere of 
your large cities, who otherwise would have become contented 
and happy tillers of the soil." The government should favor 
the increase and welfare of the industrial classes because it 
was upon them that "the future hopes of the Republic must 
rest." Continuing, Sibley said : "Sir, I have never spent a month 
in any State of this Union. My life has been passed in the 
Territories upon the outer verge of civilization. I know the 
character of the pioneer, and of the men who even now are on 
their way to the West, and I speak understandingly when I 
say that it is in such homes as this bill, if adopted, will create, 
which will forever remain the nurseries of that love of freedom 
by which alone our present happy form of government can be 
perpetuated. From the abodes of the working classes of your 
inland population there will issue, in the hour of danger to the 
country, a power not only self-sustaining but abundantly able 
to bear the ship of state through all the storms that may beset 
her." 

The bill for the relief of the indigent insane in the older 
States proposed to grant the title to certain lands in the terri- 
tories to the States to be used for that purpose. Sibley reflected 
the typical western attitude towards such a measure. He op- 
posed granting the land itself because such a procedure would 
retard settlement, but he favored instead the turning over to 



NEEDS OF A NEW TERRITORY 87 

the States for the relief of the indigent insane the proceeds of 
the sale of the first 10,000,000 acres of land which might be 
sold. The principles of the bill under consideration, he asserted, 
would cause Minnesota to "languish under a system of non- 
resident proprietorship which has hitherto, but to a less extent, 
been the bane and the curse of the West." It was unfair to 
the settlers of a new region for the government to do anything 
that would tend to retard settlement and thus delay the forma- 
tion of State governments. "Sir, when these temporary 
governments were established there was an implied but solemn 
pledge given by Congress that so soon as the increase of popula- 
tion would justify it, the Territories should be admitted, in 
accordance with established precedent, into the Union, with 
the same advantages and upon an equal footing with the 
original States, in all respects whatever. It is with this assur- 
ance that Minnesota and Oregon are now augmenting in popu- 
lation with unexampled rapidity and no man immigrates to 
either who does not look forward to their speedy admission 
into this Union. It is this expectation which nerves the settler 
to meet all the trials, and overcome all the difficulties which 
fall to the lot of those who lead the vanguard of civilization. 
. . . The Minnesotians are a peaceful and law-respecting 
people; but it may well be imagined that after they have pene- 
trated the wilderness, endured all the trials and sufferings insep- 
arable from the settlement of a new territory, made sacrifices 
of every kind in advancing the interests of our beautiful Terri- 
tory and built up villages and towns by the labor of their hands, 
with a view to meet the wants and requirements of a rapidly 
increasing population, I say it may readily be imagined that 
they would not be prepared to greet with much cordiahty the 
commissaries of the States who might go among them 'to spy out 
the land' which their own toil had rendered valuable in order 
to secure its transfer to absentee proprietors to the exclusion 
of the friends and former neighbors of the pioneers of the 
country." Sibley had the satisfaction of seeing the bill for the 
transfer of lands to the States for the relief of the indigent 



88 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

insane fail to become a law. He did not oppose affording proper 
relief to any class of unfortunate people, but he did oppose with 
all his might the transfer of title to lands within the territories 
to the States. 

The people of Minnesota were also interested in having the 
military reserve at Fort Snelling greatly decreased in size. In 
1805 when Lieutenant Pike had made his exploring expedition 
up the Mississippi, he had negotiated a treaty with the Indians 
for the cession of lands for a military reserve west of that river 
in the region of the St. Peters. In 18 19 Congress appropriated 
$2,000 to carry this part of the treaty into effect and the mili- 
tary post which was soon called Fort Snelling was established. 
In 1839 ^he limits of the reserve were finally established and 
included some 55,000 acres of the most desirable lands in Min- 
nesota. With the passing of the Indian frontier it became 
evident that the government would not need all of this land 
for a military reserve and squatters settled upon it, at first 
with the consent of the military authorities at Fort Snelling. 
In 1838 many of the squatters were forced to move to the east 
side of the river where they "squatted" again on the reserva- 
tion lands. Considerable friction existed, however, between 
them and the military authorities, chiefly because of the ease 
with which soldiers at Fort Snelling could secure liquor, and, 
in 1840, the squatters were driven off the lands east of the river 
and their cabins were destroyed. They then moved down the 
river beyond the limits of the reservation and begun the settle- 
ment which in time became St. Paul. 

As early as November, 1849, ^^^ territorial legislature 
passed a joint resolution caUing upon Sibley to use his influence 
with the Department to have the reservation confined between 
the Mississippi and Minnesota rivers and for pre-emption 
rights in favor of the settlers who had been driven off the reser- 
vation lands.2o On January 10, 1850, the Secretary of War 
informed Sibley that the President had directed the sale of 

'^Minnesota Chronicle, Miarch 30, 1850. 



NEEDS OF A NEW TERRITORY 89 

such part of the reserve as was no longer required for the use 
of the post.^^ The bill to reduce and define the boundaries of 
the reserve was introduced in the Senate by Douglas, at Sibley's 
request, and passed the Senate without difficulty, but called 
forth considerable debate in the House. The principal objection 
offered was that the War Department had not approved the 
reduction of the military reserve and some members were afraid 
that in a short time it would be necessary to buy back the land 
at a much higher price than it would be sold for. Other mem- 
bers objected to the provision granting pre-emption rights to 
the squatters who had settled on the lands. In reply to a ques- 
tion by Wentworth, of Illinois, Sibley stated that perhaps not 
more than ten or twelve persons would be benefitted by the 
pre-emption provision in the bill and he admitted that he him- 
self was one of the squatters, since his house at Mendota which 
he had built fifteen years previously was on the land which it 
was now proposed to open up. He stated, however, that he 
asked no favors not granted to others. After a long debate 
Sibley moved to refer the bill to the Committee on Military 
Affairs since, as he said, he "wished nothing done in reference 
to this subject which would not bear the strictest scrutiny."" 
When the people in Minnesota thought that the bill with the 
pre-emption provision would be passed by Congress many who 
were not entitled to pre-emption rights hastened to set up 
claims. ^^ Sibley was in a very awkward position. It had been 
the intention of the legislature in its memorial that pre-emption 
should apply to those squatters who had been driven off the 
reserve, but the way the bill was drawn these men would not 
be benefitted. Sibley feared, therefore, that he would be ac- 
cused of looking after his personal interests and those of the fur 
company and neglecting the interests of the other squatters.^^ 

^' This probably referred to lands west of the Mississippi and on the east side of that river, 
south of the St. Peters river. Minnesota Pioneer, Feb. 20, 1850. 

^' Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 433-443. 

^'H. A. Lambert to Sibley, March 18, 1850. 

'"Sibley to Ramsey, May 11, 1850, in Ramsey Papers. This discussion was brought up 
against Sibley during the campaign of 1 850 and was referred to in the "Hal Squibble" broadside. 
See Chapter V, above. 



90 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

The bill did not become a law, however, and other petitions 
were sent to Congress upon the subject. In 1852 the reserve 
was finally reduced and, through Land Claim Associations, 
the settlers secured the lands at the minimum price of ^1.25 
per acre.^^ 

^ Folwell, Minnesota the North Star State, 129-130. 



CHAPTER VII 
THE INDIAN PROBLEM ON THE FRONTIER 

(a) The IisTDiAN Policy of the United States Government 

The presence of the Indian on the frontier was a problem 
that confronted the settlers in all sections of the country. A 
discussion of the various phases of the question as it presented 
itself to the pioneers of Minnesota will be typical, therefore, 
of what happened over and over again in the conquest and 
settlement of the continent. Indian traders went everywhere 
and liquor frequently or usually went with them. The advance 
of white settlement meant a shifting of the various Indian 
tribes from one location to another. The presence of valuable 
timber or minerals on lands not yet ceded to the United States 
by the Indians was also a frequent cause of trouble between the 
races. Finally, the pressure of settlement on the Indian frontier 
became so great that new treaties had to be negotiated with the 
Indian tribes for their removal in order to open up new areas 
of settlement to the whites. The pioneers of Minnesota had to 
contend with the Indian problem in all of these phases. 

It is a well known fact that in the contact of races the 
inferior race takes on the vices before it takes on the virtues 
of the superior race. The Indians were not constitutionally 
able to resist the evil influences of the liquor traffic and many 
traders, in spite of laws to the contrary, took supplies of this 
commodity into the Indian country as a necessary part of their 
supply of goods for trade with the red men, justifying them- 
selves in their own eyes, if any such justification was necessary, 
by the fact that other traders would do the same and that the 
Indians would demand the "fire-water" and would trade only 
where it could be obtained. 

91 



^2 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Sibley was always opposed to the use of liquor in the Indian 
trade and one of his first acts after reaching Washington in 
December, 1849, ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ elected delegate from Minnesota 
Territory, was to address a communication to the Secretary 
of State informing him of the fact that the Hudson Bay Com- 
pany was regularly furnishing liquor to the Indian tribes within 
the limits of the United States and asking if friendly remon- 
strance could not be lodged with the British Government 
against the practice. He stated that the situation was not 
only demoralizing to the Indians, but was threatening the 
peace of the northwestern frontier. The Secretary of State 
replied that the United States Minister in London had been 
directed to bring the matter to the attention of the British 
Government and to remonstrate against the practice.^ 

The Hudson Bay Company was not the only means, how- 
ever, by which liquor reached the Indians of Minnesota. The 
Act of March 3, 1847, made it unlawful to take liquor within 
the boundaries of the Indian country, but it did not prevent 
its sale to the Indians just outside of those boundaries. Also, 
as has been stated, some traders took it into the Indian country 
in defiance of law. The result was that Indians could secure 
it without difficulty, and that much drunkenness was in evi- 
dence. Sibley attempted to protect the Indians against this 
demoralization, but the evil could not be entirely eradicated.^ 

The one great question on which Sibley was qualified to 
speak in Congress was the Indian policy of the United States 
government. He not only knew the workings of that poHcy 
thoroughly, but he knew the Indian and the Indian question 
more thoroughly than any man in Congress at that time. Sibley 
had lived on the frontier for fifteen years; he had not only 
traded with the Indians, but he had lived among them and 

' Clayton to Sibley, Dec. ii, 1849, published in Minnesota Chronicle, Jan. 8, 1850. 

^ J. E. Fletcher to Sibley, Jan. 19, 1849, *nd H. A. Lambert to Sibley, Feb. 6, 1849. Also 
Minnesota Chronicle, ]a.n. 19, 1950. Also Congressional Globe, ^'^ Congress, i Sess. 295. There 
is a letter to Sibley from Lewis Cass, Secretary of War, dated Nov. 5, 1834, which indicates 
Sibley's early attitude: "I am glad to learn the determination of the company you are associated 
with to comply with the law prohibiting the sale of ardent spirits to the Indians." 



INDIAN PROBLEM 93 

knew their language, their character, their possibilities, and 
their condition under the existing policy of the government. 
He was convinced that the methods of the United States 
government in dealing with the Indians was radically wrong 
and he made many eloquent appeals in behalf of the red man 
while he was in Congress. 

In an unfinished manuscript left among his papers (undated 
but probably written about this time) Sibley enumerated six 
defects of the government's Indian policy. One effect of that 
policy was to cause strife and rivalry among the Indians them- 
selves. Sibley believed that conditions among the native 
tribes were better before the government exercised any control 
over them than it was at any subsequent time. "The tribes 
which have had dealings with the government," he wrote, 
"are much more miserable than the bands further removed 
who subsist entirely by the chase. With them the authority 
of the chiefs is much better established, and, living on the most 
intimate and friendly terms with their traders, they are fur- 
nished with ammunition and clothing in exchange for the skins 
of wild animals, and, their few wants thus supplied, they are 
free from cares and are comparatively happy. The instant the 
arm of their 'Great Father' is extended to them for the purpose 
of acquiring their lands their miseries commence. Parties are 
forthwith formed in the state and the simple savage is con- 
verted into an intrignant for place and an aspirant for the 
honor of wearing a larger medal, the gift of the Government, 
than his neighbor." Sibley believed that the policy of concen- 
trating the tribes in Indian Territory was wrong because it 
might lead to the formation of a powerful confederacy there 
and thus endanger that section of the frontier. He also thought 
that it was unfair to take the Indians from their northern 
hunting grounds to the southwestern part of the United States 
where climatic conditions were so different. The stipulations 
in the various Indian treaties, Sibley asserted, were not carried 
out in good faith. Oral promises were frequently made by the 
Commissioners who negotiated the treaties and, since these 



94 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

provisions were not incorporated into the treaties, the Indian 
Agents who subsequently came among the Indians knew 
nothing about them and trouble inevitable followed. The 
Indian Agents usually did not understand the Indians and were 
consequently without influence among them. "The Agents 
being for the most part selected from among brawling parti- 
sans," he wrote, "rather than for any peculiar fitness for office 
and, ignorant of Indian character, to avoid trouble to them- 
selves in the discharge of their official duties, receive the chiefs 
& principal men who visit them abruptly and cavalierly and 
have not the patience to hear and faithfully report their com- 
plaint to the Department. The writer has witnessed this in 
numberless instances as well as the mortification and resentment 
felt & expressed by the slighted party after such reception." 
Another defect of the Indian policy was in hiring inefficient 
interpreters. Sibley believed that this position should 
pay enough salary to attract men of intelligence and education. 
Under the system then existing the office was "necessarily 
conferred upon men who either from ignorance or indolence 
cannot or will not earn their subsistence elsewhere. The Agents 
are made to say to the Indians what they never dreamed of and 
vice versa, and thus the relations of the Government are daily 
jeopardised under the operation of this 'penny wise and pound 
foolish' system." Finally, crimes committed by Indians should 
be certainly and promptly punished. Sibley stated that the 
policy of Great Britian was much better in this respect than 
that of the United States. He cited an instance while the 
British were still in charge at Prairie du Chien in 1813 when 
two Canadians had been murdered by the Indians. The mur- 
derers were immediately captured, tried by 'a drum-head 
martial,' and executed the same evening in the presence of 
several members of the tribe. "No more murders were com- 
mitted," Sibley wrote, "while the British held the country." 
"After all," he continued, "the secret of the attachment of the 
northwestern Indians to the English government may be traced 
to this spirit of promptness. Promises when made were reli- 



INDIAN PROBLEM 



95 



giously kept, and threats when uttered invariably carried into 
effect. If this plan was pursued and the other evils corrected 
which have been noticed above, I assert without fear of contra- 
diction that the Indians everywhere would become as much 
attached to our Government as they ever were to the British, 
and no further fears need be entertained that our frontier will 
ever have to undergo the horrors of a savage war."' 

Sibley's proposed solution of the Indian problem fore- 
shadows by many years the legislation when the United States 
finally decided to abandon the policy of regarding the Indian 
tribes as "nations" with whom treaties would be negotiated,* 
and substituted the plan of civilizing and educating them and 
helping them to become self-supporting. As a final result of the 
system then existing, Sibley saw only the eventual disappear- 
ance of the American Indian from the face of the earth. In a 
letter to Senator H. S. Foote he stated what he believed to be 
the inevitable consequences of the Indian policy. "The 
Indian is here in his forest home, hitherto secure from the 
intrusion of the pale faces; but the advancing tide of civiliza- 
tion warns him that ere long he must yield up his title to this 
fair domain, and seek another and a strange dwelling place. It 
is a melancholy reflection that the large and warlike tribes of 
Sioux and Chippewas who now own full nine-tenths of the soil 
of Minnesota must soon be subjected to the operation of the 
same causes that have swept their Eastern brethern from the 
earth unless an entirely different policy is pursued by the 
Government towards them. If they were brought under the 
influence and restraint of our benign laws, and some hope 
extended to them that education and a course of moral training 
would, at some future period hereafter, entitle them to be 

' Sibley introduced bills to bring about reform in the Indian policy, but without success. 
Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. I Sess. 295. The fact that Sibley was a fur trader and was con- 
nected with a large fur company may have caused some members of Congress to look with 
some suspicion upon his proposed reforms in the relations with the Indians. 

* The Indian tribes were denationalized by the Act of March 3, 1871. 



96 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

placed upon an equality, socially and politically, with the 
whites, much good would be the result."^ 

Sibley attempted to have the bill for the census of 1850 so 
amended as to have an enumeration made of all the Indian 
tribes. He believed that if such an enumeration had been made 
at the time of each census it would have shown a diminution of 
from 20,000 to 30,000 Indians each census and would have 
brought about an investigation of the cause of the decrease in 
the Indian population. He believed that the decrease and "the 
wretched and forlorn condition of the remaining tribes is to 
be ascribed entirely to the unsympathetic and cruel policy of 
the Government towards them, and to no other cause." In 
that session of Congress made famous by the great debates over 
slavery Sibley made the following earnest plea for the Indian: 
"Sir, during this session we have heard these Halls ring with 
elequent denunciations of the oppressor — with expressions of 
sympathy for the down-trodden millions of other lands; while 
gentlemen seem not to be aware that there exists under the 
Government of this Republic, a species of grinding and intoler- 
able oppression, of which the Indian tribes are the victims, 
compared with which the worst form of human bondage now 
existing in any Christian State may be regarded as a comfort 
and a blessing."^ 

Upon reading Sibley's speech on the census bill, Ramsey 
Crooks, president of the American Fur Company, immediately 
wrote to Sibley congratulating him and expressing the hope 
that he would "completely expose" the whole Indian policy of 
the government.^ This Sibley did in an able and eloquent 
speech in Congress on August 2, 1850.^ He stated that while 
the Commissioner of Indian Affairs made annual reports not 

* Sibley to Foote, Feb. 15, 1850, published in the Washington Union and also in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, i :20-2i. 

^ Congressional Globe, 31 Cong, i Sess. 855-856. 
"You are the only man who has ever been in Congress that fully understands the rami- 
fications of this truly momentious question and you owe it to the country to put on record 
developments that will astonish the public and produce a salutory reformation." Crooks to 
Sibley, May 7, 1850. 

* Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. I Sess. 1506-1508. 



INDIAN PROBLEM 97 

one-tenth of the members of either house of Congress ever 
took the trouble to read them, and that the Committee on 
Indian Affairs never pretended to do more than act upon 
business brought before it. There was no real investigation of 
conditions and no constructive policy in deahng with the prob- 
lem. Sibley believed that more attention had formerly been 
paid to Indian affairs and stated that several "plans were origi- 
nated to meliorate the condition of the Indian race," but that 
no systematic effort had ever been made *'to civilize them or 
to prepare them for admission into the great American society 
of freemen." Individuals had tried to evangelize them, but 
with little success. Sibley contrasted our treatment of the 
Indians with the policies of the Greeks, Romans, and Franks 
in dealing with conquered peoples and with the British policy 
in India. "It remained for those Anglo-Saxons," he said, 
"who fled to this New World to escape persecution at home, and 
for their descendants, boastful as they ever are and have ever 
been of their philanthropy and their religion — it remained for 
them, I say, to show to the world that while they wrested from 
the red man the soil which gave him birth, they neither incor- 
porated him into their community as a member, nor bestowed 
upon him any of those beneficent appliances which were 
necessary to preserve him and raise him to a level with them- 
selves. From the days of the Pilgrim Fathers to the present time, 
there is the same sad story to be repeated of grievous wrongs 
inflicted upon this unhappy race." He maintained that the 
policy of removing the Indians to reservations west of the 
Mississippi had had disastrous effects upon "the bands of wild 
and noble savages who roam the western prairies," since the 
Indians who were removed were "reeking with the vices but 
possessed none of the virtues of the whites." If the government 
had elevated the Indians before their removal westward their 
removal might then have had the opposite effect. The result of 
the government's policy was that most of the Indians who had 
been removed were "secret and avowed enemies of the United 
States." The fact that the Indians were powerless to redress 



98 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

their grievances should compel the government to perform its 
obligations. "I will venture to assert," he said, "that not one 
in ten of the treaties made will be found to have been carried 
out in good faith." Such treatment of the Indians could only 
make enemies of them, and this feeling of hostility was trans- 
mitted to the tribes with whom these Indians came in contact 
in the West. This was the cause of our Indian wars, 
Sibley said, and the government would continue to have trouble 
as long as it followed the existing policy in dealing with 
the Indians. 

To civilize the Indian, Sibley argued, his ambition must 
first be stimulated; he must be given hope; his confidence must 
be won; and he must be convinced that the pledged faith of the 
government is binding. The first step in the improvement of 
the Indian must be to extend to him the protection of the law.^ 
Such a provision "has for its object the security of life and prop- 
erty among the Indians themselves, to protect the industri- 
ally disposed against the system of communism by which they 
are oppressed." They should then be given lands without 
power of alienation, conditioned upon living and cultivating 
the land." "Give the Indian a home and you will have done 
much to redeem him. You thereby begin the process of dena- 
tionaHzation, and the end will be his incorporation into the 
American family. Meanwhile bestow upon him civil privileges, 
withholding political rights until he is sufficiently advanced 
to appreciate their enjoyment. Establish manual-labor 
schools for the education of his children in the useful 
arts, and in the English language, and afford him at the same 
time the blessings of religious instruction. . . . Adopt these 
incipient measures and thus prepare the way for the reception 
of the Indian as an equal into your community. . . . But, 
Mr. Chairman, I remark in conclusion that if anything is to be 
done it must be done now. The busy hum of civilized com- 
munities is already heard far beyond the mighty Mississippi. 

^Congressional Globe, 30 Cong. 2 Sess. 448; 31 Cong. 2 Sess. 18, 22. 



INDIAN PROBLEM 99 

. , . Your pioneers are encircling the last home of the red 
man, as with a wall of fire. Their encroachments are percep- 
tible in the restlessness and beligerent demonstrations of the 
powerful bands who inhabit your remote western plains. You 
must approach these with terms of conciliation and of real 
friendship, or you must soon suffer the consequences of a 
bloody and remorseless Indian war. . . . The time is not far 
distant when, pent in and suffering from want, a Philip or a 
Tecumseh will arise to band them together for a last and des- 
perate onset upon their white foes. What then will avail the 
handful of soldiers stationed to guard the frontier? Sir, they 
and your entire western settlements will be swept away as 
with a besom of destruction. We know that the struggle in 
such case would be unavailing on the part of the Indians and 
must necessarily end in their extermination. . . . Well might 
the eloquent Sevier, whose voice is now silenced in death, thus 
appeal to the Senate in behalf of the Indian tribes in 1839. 
Said he: "Let us remember the kind and hospitable reception 
of our ancestors by the natives of the country, a reception which 
has been perpetuated in carved figures in the walls of the 
Rotunda of this capitol; and in remembering these things, let 
us this day step forward and do something for our wretched 
dependents, worthy of a great, merciful, and generous people." 
Sibley's eloquent words in behalf of the Indian were not 
heeded and Mason, of Kentucky, turned the discussion from 
the Indian to the slavery question. "Nature and Nature's 
God," said he, "made the white man, the red man, and the 
black man; and when gentlemen undertook to make them equal, 
they undertake an impossible task. Our friends in the free 
States from the North have manifested as great a desire to 
elevate the condition of the African race — the black man — 
as my friend from Minnesota has shown to elevate the condition 
of the red man." It was hardly to be expected that the session 
of Congress that produced the Compromise of 1850 over the 
slavery question would take favorable action in behalf of the 
oppressed Indian. The system was not changed and the con- 



lOO TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

sequences which Sibley had so accurately foretold came in the 
great Sioux uprising of 1862, and Sibley himself was the man 
to whom the Minnesota pioneers turned in their hour of danger 
to save them from the horrors of another Indian war. 

(B) The Rice Contract 

The contract which Henry M. Rice made with Orlando 
Brown, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in 1850, for the removal 
of the Winnebago Indians to their new reservation in northern 
Minnesota is important, not only as a test of strength or "pull" 
between Sibley and Rice, but also as an illustration of one 
phase of the government's policy in dealing with the Indians. 

The Winnebagoes belonged to the Siouan linguistic family 
and had lived in the region west of Green Bay at least since 
1634 when Nicollet made them known to history. Together 
with the Sauk and Foxes and the Menominees they controlled 
the Fox-Wisconsin route to the West, and thus exercised con- 
siderable influence in determining the course of trade of the 
upper Mississippi. By the Treaty of Prairie du Chien they 
ceded all their lands south of the Fox and Wisconsin rivers 
in return for a reservation west of the Mississippi. By the 
Treaty of 1837 they gave up all claims to lands east of the 
Mississippi and in 1846 removed to the "neutral ground" in 
Iowa Territory. The advance of settlement by the whites 
made necessary another treaty with them, and in 1846 they 
surrendered their reservation for another one to be located 
north of the Minnesota river in what was soon to be Minnesota 
Territory, I'' This reservation was selected for them by Henry 
M. Rice, who had considerable influence among them, and they 
were removed to the Crow Wing reservation in 1848, Rice 
aiding in their removal. It had been the hope of the Indian 
Department that the Winnebagoes would form a buffer state 
between the Chippewas and the Sioux, who had been traditional 
enemies, but this plan did not succeed. The Winnebagoes were 

'* J. Owen Dorsey and Paul Radin, "The Winnebagoes," in Bureau of American Ethnology 
Bulletin, 30, Part 2, 958-59. 



INDIAN PROBLEM lOI 

dissatisfied even before they reached Crow Wing, and liked it 
still less after they reached there. As a consequence, they soon 
began to scatter, some of them wandering off towards the 
Dakota region. Complaints soon came to the authorities 
regarding the depredations committed by these roving bands. 
Orlando Brown, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, wrote to the 
Secretay of War, G. W. Crawford, stating that the department 
had been petitioned regarding roving bands of Pottawattamie, 
Winnebago, and Fox Indians, and asking that the commanding 
officer at the nearest military post be ordered to inquire into 
the complaints and compel the Indians to return to their 
reservations. The Adjutant General wrote to General Clark 
at St. Louis to have the commanding officer at Fort Snelling 
remove the intruders. ^^ 

The Indians seem to have been doing little real harm in 
the regions where they were roving about except where they 
were encouraged by lawless white men to make depredations 
on the frontier settlements. Chief Justice Williams, of Iowa, 
denounced these "unprincipled outlawed white men" in a letter 
to Major Murphy, Indian Agent at St. Peters. "When it may 
be to the advantage of these lawless white vagrants," he wrote, 
"they will assail and Rob the Indians and charge their acts 
upon innocent settlers and good citizens and then they will 
Rob and steal from the settlers and charge their acts upon the 
Indians. These white savages have great influence with the 
Indians and as it suits their purpose to keep up this state of 
things they advise and aid the Indians in rebellion against the 
Government and its agents. For shrewdness in villany and 
capacity in judging of the means possessed by the officers of 
the Government for the management of the Indians these men 
cannot be surpassed. "^^ 

Major Woods was sent out from Fort Snelling in September, 
1849, ^^ ^^ exploring expedition through Iowa to investigate 

" Copies of these letters of August 22 and 23, 1849, ^■"^ '" '^e Sibley Papers. A copy of 
one of the petitions signed by forty people, under date of Feb. 28, 1850, is also in the Sibley 
Papers. 

'* Williams to Murphy, Aug. 31, 1849, '" Sibley Papers. 



I02 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the conditions. He found that the reports were greatly exag- 
gerated and that the Indians were doing little real harm. "The 
frontier seems to be much disturbed," he reported, "by the 
presence of horse thieves & plunderers of every description to 
rid themselves of whom the law-abiding portion of the com- 
munity, as they consider themselves, have formed into a 
body^ sworn to clear or exterminate from the Frontier this 
numerous & troublesome association of marauders. In execu- 
tion of which design these regulators have already hung to 
trees several men & shot more, without the troublesome & 
uncertain resort to Judges & Jurymen. This policy may drive 
these offenders back among the Indians with whom they unite 
& probably return with redoubled fury & power to carry out 
their nefarious pursuits. The settlers are much exasperated & 
their excited visions see suspicious conduct, perhaps where there 
is none. To be rated as a 'horse thief it is sufficient for a man 
to 'wear good clothes, ride a good horse, have some money, & 
not work.' These are the unfailing prognostics of dishonesty." 
In regard to the nature of the injury done by the Indians, 
Major Woods found that they "do but little & aim to do less 
positive mischief, but frighten back new settlers, who not being 
accustomed to Indians are unwilling to go into a country where 
they are. . . . That the presence of these bands retards the 
settlements is doubtlessly true as it is the general & greatest 
grievance complained of." Other complaints that he had heard 
of were that the Indians destroyed timber, killed the game, 
destroyed surveyors' land-marks, and that they were dangerous 
men when they were "in liquor." Too much attention should 
not be paid to petitions coming from the frontier. Woods stated, 
because petitions were easily gotten up and were "signed readily 
without the signers even inquiring into the nature of them." It 
was said "that there were two classes of citizens on the frontier, 
one sells liquor to the Indians watered & the other without 
water. The latter class are sometimes outdone by the former & 
make complaints." Major Woods reported that there were 
about 400 to 600 Pottawattomies, Foxes, and Winnebagoes on 



INDIAN PROBLEM lOJ 

the frontier in Iowa and that most of the Winnebagoes had 
never been at the Crow Wing reservation.^^ 

When Major Woods returned to Fort SneUing with his 
report, the commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Loomis, 
reported to his superior at St. Louis that the Indians "seem to 
be so peacefully inclined and in general give so little trouble 
and withal do so little damage that I do not think a winter 
campaign called for."^* He recommended that dragoons or 
mounted infantry be sent in the spring to remove the Indians 
to their reservation. In conformity with this recommendation 
orders were issued, February 28, 1850, from St. Louis for Major 
Woods to take a company of the First Dragoons stationed at 
Fort Gaines and two companies of infantry from Fort SneUing 
and remove the Indians from Iowa. The dragoons were ordered 
to proceed from Fort Gaines to Fort SneUing on April 9, 1850. 
This plan was in process of execution, therefore, when the 
authorities on the frontier learned of the contract which Rice 
had made with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 

Rice wrote from Washington to Governor Ramsey, March 
19, 1850, informing him that he had on that day made an offer 
to the Indian Department to remove the Winnebagoes, but 
that the matter would be referred to Ramsey as Superintendent 
of Indians in Minnesota Territory, before being definitely 
acted upon. Rice hoped that Ramsey would give a favorable 
reply to the proposition, and he asked Ramsey to keep the 
matter secret because he feared that efforts would be made 
by his enemies in Minnesota, if they heard of the contract, to 
cause the Indians to disperse and thus cause Rice to lose heav- 
ily on the deal.^^ 

Sibley heard that there was some such move on foot and 
wrote to Ramsey about it on March 22, 1850. "The latest 
move & joke of the season is the offer of Rice to the Indian 

'' Woods kept a diary of his trip and the manuscript is in the Sibley Papers. 
"Loomis to Buell, Oct. 23, 1849, a copy of which is in the Sibley Papers. 
'* Rice to Ramsey, Mar. 19, 1850, in Ramsey Papers. The matter was never referred to 
Ramsey as Rice thought it would be, and Ramsey did not favor such a procedure. 



I04 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Office to remove the Winnebagoes back to their home at $y^ per 
head men, women, & children. I am assured confidentially that 
the scheme was pressed upon the Commissioner seriatim by 
Cochrane the clerk, but a quietus was put upon it by D. D. 
Mitchell, who told the former if such a plan was adopted he 
would protest openly against it. Did you ever hear of such 
gross impudence as is manifested in this proposition?" 

The contract was entered into, on April 13, 1850.1^ Rice 
bound himself to collect the scattered Winnebagoes and remove 
them to Crow Wing during the year 1850, to furnish the Indians 
"with ample subsistence of a suitable and acceptable kind 
from the time they shall be collected in parties or otherwise 
for removal, until their arrival in their aforsaid country." 
Tents, cooking utensels, blankets, shoes, and other articles of a 
like nature were to be furnished as well as food. Rice was also 
to have crops planted and cultivated before the arrival of the 
Indians at Crow Wing. In return for this service. Rice was to 
receive $70 per head for those Indians who had never gone to 
Crow Wing or who had left that reservation with the intention 
of not returning to it and whom Rice should succeed in getting 
back to the reservation. It was specifically stated that it 
was not to apply to and payment be made for the second re- 
moval in case some of the Indians whom Rice took back in 1850 
should thereafter leave the reservation again. Rice was to 
furnish Governor Ramsey with "a correct hst or roll of all the 
said Indians who reached and passed St. Paul," which list 
Ramsey was to verify and forward to the Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs and was to be made the basis of payment under 
the contract. ^^ 

Sibley had not been consulted by the Commissioner and he 
first heard of the contract on April 18. His consternation may 

"The contract along with other documents relating to it was published in the Chronicle 
and Register, July 8, 1850. 

'' David Olmstead had been appointed by Ramsey to check the roll as filed by Rice. 
Olmstead was about the only man who was well enough acquainted with the Winnebagoes, 
except Rice, to really recognize and check the Indians as they passed St. Paul. Rice took 
Olmstead in on the contract with himself and thus left Ramsey "without efficient help." Ramsey 
to Sibley, June 3, 1850. 



INDIAN PROBLEM 



105 



well be imagined. On the following day he wrote his "official 
protest" which he filed with the Commissioner, and asked that 
the contract be annulled for the following reasons: "First, it 
is evident that the Department has been grossly deceived by 
Mr. Rice as to the number of Indians absent from their own 
lands, and his ability to perform what he has undertaken. 1 
have received information which leads me to believe that 
fully one half of the whole tribe are absent from the spot which 
the Government had set apart for their dwelling place. Con- 
sequently when Mr. Rice induced the Department to enter 
into a contract with him upon his representation that there 
were fully a thousand or twelve hundred he practiced a decep- 
tion upon it which fully exonorates it from any obligation to 
carry out the contract." In the second place, Sibley claimed 
that the amount to be paid was at least three times what it 
should be if any contract was to be made. Also the contract 
reflected upon the Indian officials, including Governor Ramsey, 
and would bring upon them "the contempt of the Indians." 
Sibley believed that the plan already in process of execution 
on the frontier was the proper method to pursue, not only 
cheaper, but of more lasting effects. "Finally," he said, "I 
take the liberty of stating my opinion that the present scheme 
of Mr. Rice is derogatory to the dignity of the Government, 
which should be able to manage a tribe of vagabond Indians 
without counting on the support and supposed influence of any 
individual in carrying out its designs. Why I was not con- 
sulted. ... I am at a loss to decide. I was present at the 
Indian office for more than two hours on the 13th inst., the 
day on which the contract was signed and, although the sub- 
ject of the removal of the Winnebagoes was discussed and Gov- 
ernor Ramsey's official dispatch read to me by yourself in the 
presence of Colonel Mitchell, Mr. Rice also being present in 
the office, I did not receive a single intimation that a measure 
of so much importance as the contract alluded to was to be 
consumated, or I should have protested against it on the spot. 
This apparent studied concealment I deem to be on my part a 



lo6 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

just subject of complaint." Sibley stated that he was satisfied 
"that other persons than Mr. Rice, who I learn were active in 
urging this measure upon the Department, are more or less 
pecuniarily interested in the success of his contract." 

On April 20, Sibley wrote to Ramsey giving his opinion as 
to the inside working of the Indian Department by which Rice 
was able to get such a contract. "This iniquitous scheme," he 
wrote, "was concocted while I was confined to my room some 
twenty days with inflamation of the eye. ... I have no 
doubt Cochrane persuaded Brown to sign the contract, and I 
firmly believe him to be one of the worthy trio who are to 
profit by the arrangement. I told Brown that I would have 
undertaken the service for $10 per head, if disposed to meddle 
with that sort of business, but I really believed the system of 
private contracts for such objects to be dishonorable to the 
Government. . . . Between ourselves. Brown is utterly out 
of his element in the Indian Office. He has neither industry 
nor any knowledge of Indian Ajffairs, and is very easily duped. 
As for Cochrane^ I have no faith in him."^^ 

Colonel A. M. Mitchell, the Whig Marshall of Minnesota 
Territory, who was with Rice in Washington and who was to 
be a candidate for delegate against Sibley during the summer 
of that same year, wrote to Ramsey on April 23 that Sibley 
had filed his "official protest," but that it would be disregarded. 
"I have thought," he wrote, "that I would inform you that the 
government pays no attention to his Protest, but look upon 
it as consumate presumption. ... It is true that Mr. S. was 
not consulted because they supposed his opinions of no impor- 
tance and could or would not shed any light on the subject." 

Brown replied to Sibley's protest on April 25, 1850, and said 
that Sibley was not consulted before the contract was made 
because the matter was to affect Iowa and Wisconsin and that 
Minnesota had no cause of complaint. He affirmed that there 
was no cause for concealment and no reason for wishing to 

^* Cochrane was a clerk in Brown's office. 



INDIAN PROBLEM IO7 

keep Sibley ignorant of it. Brown believed that the Indians 
should be removed without the use of dragoons. The contract 
was, he said, "in design one of humanity — such as has been too 
seldom practiced against the Indians." Brown stated that he 
had conferred with Senator Jones, of Iowa, Colonel Mitchell, 
and others, and that they had thought the price not exorbitant. 
"I was therefore upon such representations warranted in con- 
tracting with him. Indeed, the impression made by these 
gentlemen was that he was the only man whose influence with 
the Indians was such as to enable him to effect what was pro- 
posed." Brown insisted that the Indian Office had never dis- 
trusted Governor Ramsey and meant nothing disrespectful to 
him by taking the matter out of his hands and giving it to 
Rice. "The contract," he concluded, "whether wise or not 
is a binding contract, and not subject to repeal, even if I 
desired to do so, which I do not." 

Orlando Brown seems to have been a well-meaning Com- 
missioner of Indian Affairs, but he was a man who did not 
know the details of the business which he was supposed to direct. 
He seems also to have been easily influenced by his subordi- 
nates, some of whom were doubtless interested in some way 
in getting the contract for Rice. The whole affair would prob- 
ably be called a case of "graft" in later terminology, but no 
suspicion was ever attached to Orlando Brown in this respect.^® 
The worst that can be said of him is that he was led by men 
whom he trusted, but who were not entirely reliable, to make 
the contract. 

The newspapers of Minnesota did not oppose the contract 
when its existence first became known. The Pioneer of May 9, 
1850, announced it in the following words: "Mr. H. M. Rice, 
of St. Paul, has taken a contract from the Government to 
remove the Winnebago Indians back again to their proper 



" An idea of the reasonableness of the price paid to Rice may be formed by comparing it 
with a contract which Major Woods made with A. D. Stephens for the removal of the Fox and 
other tribes in Iowa "to their homes west of the Missouri." Stephens was to be paid ^3.50 for 
each male and female transported, with an allowance of J500 for provisions. 



I08 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

limits near Crow Wing, at so much per head. This will save 
much expense of equipping and marching troops." The 
Chronicle and Register of May 1 1, 1850, said: "Mr. Rice has the 
business talent and energy to accomplish it, and we are told 
by those better acquainted than ourselves with such matters, 
that the compensation is very liberal." Dr. Potts wrote to 
Sibley on June i, 1850, giving another view of it. He said that 
a copy of the St. Louis Union of May 25, containing a long 
article on the contract and denouncing the Whig administration 
as a "rotten concern" had caused Minnesota Whigs who did 
not like the contract to feel called upon to defend the adminis- 
tration and hence say little about it.^° Others said that it 
would have been so much the better if Rice got $1,000 per head 
instead of $70, since he would leave the money in the country 
while if the fur company had gotten the contract the money 
would have been taken out of the Territory. Such individuals 
said that "all the fuss has been raised because the Fur Company 
did not get it." The Chronicle and Register of June 10, 1850, 
said that the matter resolved itself into a fight between Pierre 
Choteau & Company and Rice — "a personal quarrel between 
two rival parties of Indian traders — one party wanted the 
contract — the other got it." 

Sibley honestly believed that a fraud was being committed 
against the Government and that the price paid Rice was far 
greater than it should have been. He would have opposed 
any such contract with any one, but he was, of course, deter- 
mined against this one, since the beneficiary was his most bitter 
personal and political enemy. He did everything in his power 
to have the contract anulled, even taking the matter to the 
President,^^ and, when that failed, he caused a Congressional 
investigation to be made. This investigation dragged on during 
most of the summer of 1850 and, in the meantime. Brown 
resigned his office and was succeeded by Luke Lea." In the end, 

*' The article in the St. Louis Union denouncing the contract as gross fraud and con- 
demning the administration for making it was no doubt inspired by the Choteau fur company. 
^' Sibley to Ramsey, May 1 8, 1850, in Ramsey Papers. 
^Sibley to Ramsey, May 30, 1850, in Ramsey Papers, 



INDIAN PROBLEM 



109 



the Committee reported against rescinding the contract and 
Sibley failed in his struggle to prevent Rice from carrying it 
out. "I suppose Rice will claim a victory over me," Sibley 
wrote to Ramsey on June 26, "but he has in reality had nothing 
to do with the result except so far as his friend Jones operated 
to throw cold water upon the democratic members of the Com- 
mittee, which I must do him the justice to say he did most 
actively." Sibley had been at a disadvantage in not using 
private letters from Ramsey and others as evidence, without 
having their permission to do so, and by not having time to 
get additional evidence from Minnesota. Morever, the burden 
of proof had been upon him. He was greatly disappointed at 
the outcome, but two points gave him some encouragement. 
Orlando Brown was succeeded by a man in whom he had the 
utmost confidence, and the whole affair convinced the authori- 
ties at Washington that greater reliance should be placed on 
Governor Ramsey as ex-ofiicio Superintendent of Indians in 
Minnesota," The total amount paid under the contract was 
^24,330.72.24 The fact that the amount was no larger seems 
to have been a reason why the contract was not rescinded 
after the matter had been so vigorously protested by Sibley. 
The point which hurt Sibley most was the way it was interpreted 
in Minnesota as a test of poHtical strength between himself 
and Rice,^^ 

(C) The Sioux Treaties of 1851 
With the title of nine-tenths of the soil of Minnesota still 
in the hands of the Indians, it was evident that other treaties 
with them were necessary if the young territory was to have 
even normal growth.^^ Consequently, the pioneers began to 
demand treaties with the Sioux and Chippewas almost as soon 
as Minnesota Territory was organized.^^ Goodhue, in the 

^ Sibley to Ramsey, June 20 and July 26, 1850, in Ramsey Papers. 

^ Congressional Globe, 32 Cong. 2 Sess. 1080. 

^ Folwell, Minnesota, 105. 

^ The early settlers recognized that the land west of the Mississippi must be acquired or 
Minnesota would remain "a dwarfed and blighted Territory for years." Pioneer, Dec. 25, 1851. 

^' Ramsey asked the first territorial legislature to memorialize Congress for a treaty with 
the Sioux and this was done, 'journal of the Council oj Minnesota Territory, 1 849, 1 10. 



no TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Pioneer^ reflected the typical attitude of the settlers when he 
stated that the Sioux would have to go and "the sooner the 
better."28 The Indians themselves were ready to treat in 
1 85 1 because the growing scarcity of game was causing much 
hardship and suffering among them and they were anxious to 
get annuities from the government. The traders were anxious 
for a treaty because they recognized that the fur traders* fron- 
tier was passing from Minnesota and they were anxious to have 
a settlement of their Indian credits which, because of the desti- 
tution of the Indians, were growing larger and larger, and the 
prospects of settlement by the Indians themselves was growing 
less.^^ Things were favorable, therefore, for the negotiation of 
other treaties and this was accomplished in 1851. 

The negotiation of an Indian treaty was a great event in 
frontier history and there was a general scramble among the 
traders to get "the spoils." The influence of the traders and 
half-breeds had to be taken into consideration if any success 
was to come from the negotiations, for if these two influences 
were thrown against the making of a treaty the commissioners 
were doomed to failure. This raises the whole question of the 
justice of the traders' claims. 

Since practically all of the Indian trade was carried on by 
credit extended to the Indians in the fall with the promise of 
payment in the spring when the winter's supply of furs had been 
brought in, it is an unquestionable fact that many of the traders' 
accounts against the Indians were not paid in full. As has been 
shown in a previous chapter, certain of these accounts were 
carried year after year on the books of the American Fur Com- 
pany, and the same was probably true of other traders. On 
the other hand, it has also been shown that the goods were sold 
to the Indians at a profit of 75% to 100% or even higher. As 
with modern business men doing a credit business, the selling 

"^ Pioneer, Feb. 13, 1850. Franklin Steele wrote to Sibley that "the population of Minne- 
sota will not remain cooped up between the St. Croix and the Mississippi and will push west in 
spite of troops, Indians, or any other obstacles," Steele to Sibley, Feb. 18, 1851. 

^' McLeod, a trader, wrote to Sibley, April 10, 1851, that his credits for that year would 
be between ^4,000 and ^5,000 and that the Indians would not settle for more than half of it. 



INDIAN PROBLEM III 



price of goods was doubtless placed high partly to cover possible 
loss on bad accounts. There is no question that the trader 
assumed considerable risk, since he bought his goods on credit 
and, in turn, extended credit to the Indians, and had to depend 
for the sale of his furs on a future market where prices could 
not be definitely determined. For these reasons he could be 
justified, according to modern business methods, in charging a 
higher price for his goods than if the transaction had been on a 
cash basis. When an Indian treaty was to be negotiated, how- 
ever, all of these old accounts against individual Indians, many 
of them running back for several years, were presented by the 
traders as a charge against the whole tribe. Some of these 
accounts were no doubt accurate and many of them were prob- 
ably "padded." It will never be possible to analyze these 
accounts and determine with even an approximate accuracy 
just how much the Indians were defrauded at the making of a 
treaty. The total of all the claims against the Indians greatly 
exceeded the amount set aside for the payment of their "just 
debts," and negotiations among the traders themselves were 
necessary in order to determine how much of the "spoils" 
should go to each trader. This would have a tendency to 
cause dishonest traders to "pad" their accounts with the hope 
that after the adjustment of claims had been made they would 
get all that was coming to them. Some claims were not 
allowed in this adjustment and the dissatisfied traders were 
ready to oppose the ratification of the treaty, and even to stir 
up dissatisfaction among the Indians themselves. The half- 
breeds also had to be satisfied out of the "spoils," or they would 
use their influence with the Indians to prevent the success of 
the negotiations. These two influences must be clearly recog- 
nized in order to appreciate the difficulties under which Com- 
missioners worked who carried on the negotiations.^" The Sioux 



'" In 1849 Ramsey and Chambers had attempted to negotiate a treaty with the Sioux and 
failed largely because their instructions were too strict to permit them to meet the opposition 
of these two influences. 



112 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

treaties of 1851 were no doubt typical of what happened over 
and over again in the history of the frontier. 

The appointment of Commissioners to negotiate the treaty 
was all-important from the stand point of the traders. Sibley 
worked hard and long to get Hugh Tyler appointed Commis- 
sioner with Ramsey to negotiate the Sious treaties, but his 
efforts were in vain. Thompson, of Indiana, was appointed in 
December, 1850, in spite of Sibley's opposition to him. Tyler 
failed to get the appointment, so Sibley wrote to Ramsey, by 
his "too great impetuosity ... in repelling the insinuation 
that we were banded together to compass certain ends of our 
own." The Indian appropriation bill, however, passed during 
this session of Congress, contained a provision that all com- 
missioners to negotiate Indian treaties after the passage of the 
act should be selected from the officers or agents of the Indian 
Department. In this way it happened that Luke Lea himself 
became commissioner, jointly with Ramsey, who as Governor 
was ex-officio Superintendent of Indians in Minnesota, to nego- 
tiate the treaties. 

Ramsey, in a communication to the Commissioner of Indian 
Affairs, had expressed the hope, while it was yet thought that 
Thompson would be one of the commissioners and he the other, 
that the instructions issued to them should be explicit on the 
subject of Indian debts to the traders. This called forth the 
following protest from Sibley: "By the by (remember this is 
confidential) while I am working for you individually, as well 
as for the Territory, here, and bringing up all my forces to sus- 
tain you, I do not like to have you suggest to the Commr. that 
you hope he will restrict the Commrs. on the subject of debts 
in making the treaties above, so that little or no discretion will 
be left them, as otherwise the traders who control the Indians 
will 'exact the last penny.' Now I do not believe, in fact know, 
you did not wish it to be understood as thereby desiring that 
the just claims should not be paid, but the communication is 
susceptible of such construction, and the instructions may be 
so framed as to forbid you to make any allowances. This 



INDIAN PROBLEM I IJ 

would be in effect not only to commit a gross injustice towards 
men who impoverished themselves in supplying the Indians, 
after 20 or 30 years of labor and exposure, but it would neces- 
sarily result in the failure of any attempt to treat. . . . We 
ask no aid from the Government but we do ask that the Indians 
shall not be precluded from paying their just debts if they wish 
to do so." "It should be bourne in mind," he wrote on another 
occasion, "that only one division of the Sioux ever paid a cent 
of their debts, the Mindayuakantons having done so up to 
1837. The upper bands have never treated hitherto. "^^ 

Three treaties were negotiated with the Indians of Minne- 
sota in 1 85 1, two with the Sioux and one with the Chippewas, 
the last named of which was not ratified by the Senate. The 
negotiations with the upper bands of Sioux, which were taken 
up first because they were thought to be more favorable to 
making a treaty, were carried on at Traverse des Sioux. The 
treaty with the lower Sioux was made later in the same year 
at Mendota, and the treaty with the Chippewas was nego- 
tiated at Pembina. In the treaty of Traverse des Sioux the 
upper Sioux Indians agreed to give up all their claims to lands 
east of Red River of the North, Lake Travers, and the Big 
Sioux River, except a reservation along the Minnesota river, 
ten miles on each side of the river, from Lake Travers to the 
Yellow Medicine river. In return for this cession of land, 
the Indians were to be paid $1,665,000. Of this amount, 
$1,360,000 was to be held in trust by the United States and 
interest at 5% per annum paid to the Indians for fifty years, 
which was to be considered "full payment of said balance, 
principal and interest." It was provided that certain sums 
should go into the "civilization fund"and the"educational fund" 
and that the sum of $275,000 was to be used for the purpose of 
paying the expenses of removing the Indians to their new 
reservation, for their subsistence there during the first year, 
and to "enable them to settle their affairs and comply with their 

"Sibley to Ramsey, Feb. 9, 1851, and March 21, 1851, in Ramsey Papers. 



114 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

present just engagements." This meant, of course, the traders* 
claims, and was "to be paid to the chiefs in such manner as 
they hereafter in open council shall request." 

As the Indian chiefs signed the treaty, by mark, they were 
led to another place and asked to sign another document which 
is known in Minnesota history as the "traders' paper," but 
which the Indians thought (so they later claimed) was a dupli- 
cate copy of the treaty. The most important parts of this 
document were as follows: "We the undersigned Chiefs, Sol- 
diers and Braves of the Wahpaton & Sisseton Bands of Sioux 
Indians, having this day concluded a treaty with Luke Lea and 
Alexander Ramsey . . . and being desirous to pay our Traders 
and Half-breeds the sums of money which we acknowledge to 
be justly due to them, do hereby obligate and bind ourselves, 
as the representatives of the aforesaid Bands, to pay to the 
individuals hereinafter designated, the sums of money set 
opposite their respective names . . . and as it is specified 
that said sum shall be paid in such manner as requested by the 
Chiefs in open council thereafter, we do hereby in open council 
request and desire that the said sums below specified shall be 
paid to the persons designated. . . . and for this payment 
well & truly to be made we here by solemnly pledge ourselves 
and the faith of our nation. . . ." 

This paper was not read or explained to the Indians at the 
time of signing it and the evidence is not conclusive that its 
contents were explained to them at that time.^'^ It is certain, 
however, that the Indians were told that part of the $275,000 
was for the purpose of paying their debts to the traders.^' Since 
the Indians signed the traders' papers immediately after signing 
the treaty, there was no opportunity for an open council unless it 

^ J. R. Brown and Martin McLeod, two of the traders, both testified before the Com- 
mittee that investigated the matter that the paper was explained to the chiefs before they signed 
it. Senate Document, 6i, pp. 42, 219, 245. 

'^ S. R. Riggs, a missionary and a witness to the paper wrote: "I was not present at any 
meeting of half-breeds and those engaged in the trade held for the purpose of adjusting matters 
among themselves. . . . But everywhere, on all occasions, and at all ourmeelings with the princi- 
pal Dakota men. . . . I told them plainly, and heard others tell them that the $2y^,ooo was intended 
among other things to enable them to pay their just debts. Riggs to Sibley, Jan. 16, 1 852. 



INDIAN PROBLEM II5 

be considered that they were in open council at the time of the 
signing of the treaty and in that same open council directed 
that the money be paid to the traders, thus technically meeting 
the requirements of the treaty that the money would be paid 
"in such manner as they hereafter in open council shall request." 
To an unbiased observer today it looks decidedly like the white 
man was not dealing fairly with the Indian. 

Since the total amount of the claims presented by the traders 
was greater than the amount of money available to pay the 
"just debts" of the Indians, it required considerable bargaining 
among the traders themselves to adjust the claims and find 
out what the "just debts" really were. The names of the 
traders to receive payment and the amount to be paid each were 
not affixed to the trader^' paper until the next morning.^^ In 
the meantime the traders adjusted the claims among them- 
selves. A committee of three representing the traders, Martin 
McLeod, Joseph R. Brown, and Louis Roberts, and Sibley, 
representing the half-breeds, made the adjustment. They did 
not examine books or compel the traders to make their state- 
ments under oath,^^ and the schedule of claims as affixed to 
the traders' paper was probably not submitted to the chiefs. ^^ 
This paper provided that $209,200 should go to the traders, 
$800 to S. R. Riggs for the American Board of Missions, and 
$40,000 to the half-breeds, making a total of $250,000 out of 
the $275,000. The half-breeds received $250 each, some of this 
money going to the half-breed children of some of the prominent 
traders. 

The treaty with the lower Sioux, made at Mendota, was 
similar to the treaty of Traverse des Sioux, except the amount of 
money was different. The traders and half-breeds were pro- 
vided for and there was a similar adjustment of traders' claims.^' 

^ Testimony of McLeod before the investigating committee. Senate Doc. 6i, 227. 

** Ji>id, 115, 233. 

^* Testimony of Sibley: "I do not know that the sums thus apportioned were submitted 
to the chiefs." Senate Document, 61, p. 219. 

^' Sibley received |i,ooo for his half-breed daughter under this treaty and invested it in 
an Iron Mountain Railroad bond. This account is in his ledger which is in the Minnesota 
Historical Society library. 



Il6 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

The treaty with the Chippewas was made at Pembina and much 
the same methods were used there. The traders at that place 
were anxious to keep outsiders away so that they could get the 
"spoils." In a letter from Pembina to Fred Sibley, N. W. Kitt- 
son stated that they wanted no "loafers" to come to Pembina 
and that he thought Ramsey "should give the Pembinese a 
chance at the spoils. "^^ He stated further that if they did come 
the traders at Pembina would make it so unpleasant for them 
that they would not want a second trip. On September 23, 
1 851, Kittson wrote that the treaty had been made "after the 
usual squabbling and manouvering," that it had been impos- 
sible, of course, to satisfy everybody, the half-breed settlement 
causing the most trouble, but that all unpleasant feelings would 
soon be forgotten and that the results of the treaty would be 
very beneficial. This treaty was later rejected by the United 
States Senate. 

Great opposition was shown in the Senate to the ratification 
of the two Sioux treaties^' and great dissatisfaction was in 
evidence among the Indians themselves over the payment of 
their "just debts." This dissatisfaction led to considerable 
trouble at the time of payment to the upper Sioux, most of 
which was stirred up by Madison Sweetser who seems to have 
been the tool of other men who did not share in the spoils and 
who hoped to profit by blackmailing the traders whose claims 
were allowed.^" When the time came for payment under the 
treaties the chiefs demanded that the amount for the settlement 
of their "present engagements" be paid to them and be disposed 
of in open council. Ramsey, who had been appointed disbursing 
agent, held them to the terms of the traders' paper, however, 

^* Kittson to Fred Sibley, July 25, 1851, in Sibley Papers. 

'* "It was not any allegation of fraud and deceit which formed the ground of this opposi- 
tion. It came from Southern Senators not willing to extend the area of settlement to the north, 
on which to build another free State." Folwell, Minnesota, 98. 

*" "My brother writes me that Sweetser, under the effective tuition of the Ewings & Rice 
combine, is doing all he can to persuade the Indians to declare their obligations to us null & 
void, and to induce them to give him a power of attorney to act for them in defrauding us of 
our just dues. This is but another phase in the history of the gigantic schemes of fraud in which 
these noted individuals are concerned." Sibley to Ramsey, Dec. 26, 1851, in Ramsey Papers. 



INDIAN PROBLEM II7 

and settlement was made accordingly. For this action Ramsey 
was severely criticised in Minnesota by persons not financially 
benefitted by the arrangement. 

As early as January, 1852, Ramsey asked Sibley to bring 
about an investigation of his conduct in connection with the 
treaties,'*^ but the investigation did not materialize until 1853. 
A Senate committee was then appointed and it examined a few 
witnesses, but reported to the Senate that no conclusion had 
been reached. The Senate then authorized the President to 
appoint a committee to go to Minnesota and examine witnes- 
ses. President Pierce appointed Judge R. M. Young, of Illinois, 
and W. A. Gorman, the new Democratic Governor of Minne- 
sota Territory, to make the investigation. Judge Young ex- 
amined witnesses at St. Paul during the late summer of 1853 and 
made a lengthy report which was finally sent to the Senate. 
This report contained several criticisms of Ramsey's part in 
the disbursement of the money, but the Senate finally decided 
that the charges against him had not been sustained, and that 
the Senate considered his action highly meritorious and proper.*^ 

The investigation seemed to implicate Sibley in the ques- 
tionable conduct charged in connection with the treaties. An 
article which appeared in the Washington Evening Star caused 
Sibley to write to Governor Gorman asking if there was any- 
thing in the report made by him and Judge Young which was 
sufficient ground for such implication. To this inquiry Gover- 
nor Gorman made the following reply: 'T received your note 
of today calling my attention to an article in the "Evening 
Star," of Washington, which says that the report of Judge 



^^ "In the complication of politics here, the strong personal animosity that pervades 
society — I look for such insinuations (speculations &c). I should be rather simple did I expect 
to fare better than others have done before me in administering the affairs of a frontier country. 
All I can do is to preserve my hands unspotted — and I will esteem it a favor should the thing be 
breathed again, if you would say to these at Washington that I would esteem it a favor, whenever 
the charge comes from a responsible source, for them to institute an investigation. These things 
might be mortifying but a moments consideration teaches me that if I will live in the midst of 
this kind of population it is folly to complain of any consequences." Ramsey to Sibley, Jan. 14, 
1851, (52). 

** Senate Journal, ^■^ Cong, i Sess. 211. 



Il8 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Young upon the charges preferred against Ex. Gov. Ramsey 
seriously implicates you and you desire me to say as one of the 
Commissioners who investigated said charges whether it is 
true that our Report 'Seriously implicates' you. In reply I 
have to say that I am not aware of any thing in that report 
which implicates you or was intended to 'Seriously implicate' 
you. Nor was there anything proven on the investigation that 
would justify us in making such report."^' 

The chief significance of this whole affair is that it illustrates 
the defect in the government's policy of regarding the Indian 
tribes as "nations" with which it would make treaties, since 
the methods employed in connection with these treaties were 
not unlike those used in other instances. If the method does 
not seem to reflect credit upon the men involved, it should be 
remembered that standards of honesty and morality change 
with time and that it is not always fair to judge men of one 
generation by standards of later times when the public con- 
science has become somewhat more keen on the conduct of 
public officials. It was inevitable that the Indians should be 
forced to give up the title to the lands in Minnesota, as else- 
where, and, as has been shown, no treaty could be negotiated 
unless the traders and half-breeds were favorable to it. "Such 
aid could be had only by paying for it. The device of allowing 
Indians to stipulate in treaties for the payment to traders of 
debts due them from individual Indians, as if they were tribal 
obligations, had long been practiced. But for the machinations 
of disgruntled parties desirous of being taken into the happy 
circle of beneficiaries, the scheme might have worked as quietly 
and comfortable as usual. An old interpreter says of these 
treaties that 'they were as fair as any Indian treaties.' "" That 
the public of that day approved the action of the men who 
made the treaties is shown by the future public careers of both 
Ramsey and Sibley.^^ This whole matter was significant also 

*^ Gorman to Sibley, Feb. 15, 1854. 
** Folwell, Minnesota, 101-102. 

*' Both men were later elected Governor of the State of Minnesota, and Ramsey was 
elected to the United States Senate. 



INDIAN PROBLEM II9 

because It added one more cause of bitterness between the 
races and contributed to the Sioux outbreak in 1862. 

Irrespective of the means by which it was accomplished, 
there is no question that the negotiation of these treaties was 
one of the most important events in the early history of Minne- 
sota because it resulted in the opening up of new areas of 
settlement. The population of the territory grew by leaps and 
bounds after this event, and Minnesota was ready for admis- 
sion into the Union in the short space of seven years. *^ 

^ Much assistance in the parts of this chapter dealing with the Sioux treaties was received 
from an unusually good Master's Thesis in the library of the University of Minnesota by Miss 
Ruth Thompson, "The Sioux Treaties at Traverse des Sioux and Mendota in 1851 and their 
Outcome." 



CHAPTER VIII 

TERRITORIAL GROWTH AND THE ORGANIZATION 

OF A STATE 

Several considerations induced Sibley not to be a candidate 
for re-election for another term in Congress. He believed that 
his services were not fully appreciated by a large number of 
people at home where the usual frontier feeling existed that 
one man was about as well qualified as another for poHtical 
office. Also he had no desire to go through the bitterness of 
another campaign like that of 1850. The differences between 
himself and Rice had not yet been healed when he decided 
to retire and it was necessary to show some spirit of concilia- 
tion if the Democratic party in Minnesota was to become 
united. Business considerations also probably had some 
influence on his decision. The prospects of becoming Governor 
of Minnesota Territory also was a factor in causing him to 
decline another nomination as delegate. His name had been 
mentioned in connection with the governorship as early as 
1847, even before the territory was organized.^ If Lewis Cass 
had been elected President in 1848 instead of Taylor it is 
possible, if not probable, that Sibley would have been strongly 
considered for the governorship. Although he had at that 
time not yet announced his politics, still he was a personal 
friend of Cass and was, beyond question, the most prominent 
man in the region which became Minnesota. As the year 1852 
approached, the Democrats were hopeful of a national victory 
and this would mean a change of officials in Minnesota Terri- 
tory. When Pierce was elected, Sibley's friends urged his 
appointment to the governorship^ and, for a time, they were 

* "Why will you not take the Governorship? You can get it for the asking." D. G. Fenton 
to Sibley, April 13, 1847. 

^ There is a recommendation of Sibley, signed by 58 members of Congress, including the 
names of Henry Dodge, J. C. Breckenridge, and Andrew Johnson, in the Sibley Papers (Misc.). 

120 



TERRITORIAL GROWTH 121 

quite confident of success. During 1852 friends of Sibley and 
Rice brought about an agreement between them to effect a 
reconciliation between the Democratic factions in Minnesota 
and this removed opposition from that quarter to Sibley's 
appointment as Governor.^ The two chief reasons why Sibley 
was not appointed seem to have been the attitude of Stephen A. 
Douglas and the fact that Sibley was connected with the fur 
trade. Douglas used his influence against Sibley because the 
latter was known to favor the nomination of Cass in 1852 
rather than Douglas. Sibley's connection with the Sioux 
Treaties of 1851 was used against him but Pierce stated that 
it did not influence his decision.^ The outcome of the matter 
was that Willis A. Gorman, of Indiana, was appointed governor 
and served during the Pierce administration. Sibley closed 
out his connection with the fur trade about this time and 
turned his attention to other business. Except for one term 
in the territorial legislature, 1854-55, he gave the next four 
years to business, but he was ready at all times to assist in any 
way the development of the territory and its advancement 
towards statehood. Since Sibley next emerges from private 
life as Governor of the State of Minnesota, it is necessary to 
sketch the chief features of territorial growth. 

During the period that Sibley was in private life the terri- 
tory grew by leaps and bounds. The census of 1850 gave 
Minnesota a population of 6,077, of which 1,586 were born in 
Minnesota, 2,511 born in the United States outside of Minne- 
sota, and 1,977 were foreign born. The New England element 
was particularly strong, although it was mainly a generation 
or more away from New England proper, as was the case with 
Sibley.^ New York furnished more settlers to Minnesota than 
any other single State, followed in order by Maine, Wisconsin, 

^ Rice to Sibley, Feb. 3, 1 853. This was the first letter that had passed between them since 
1849. Hostility broke out between the two men, however, a few years later. 

^ A. C. Dodge to Sibley, April i, 1853. Also Eastman to Sibley, Dec. 9, 1853. 

* Of the twenty-seven members of the first territorial legislature, eight had been born in 
New England, four in New York, six in Canada, twoin Missouri, and one in each of the following: 
Delaware, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The nativity of two is unknown. 



122 



TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 



Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, and Vermont. Most 
of the population was along the Mississippi and St. Croix 
rivers and in the Pembina region of the Red River valley. 
Ramsey county had a population of 2,222; Pembina county 
had 1,134; and Washington county had 1,056. More than two- 
thirds of the people of the territory lived in these three counties. 
Dakota county came next with a population of 584, followed 
by Benton county with 418, Wabashaw with 343, Wahnahta 
with 160, Mahkahta with 158, and Itasca with 97.^ 




MINNESOTA TERRITORY 1333. 



The settlement of Minnesota Territory progressed with 
remarkable rapidity down to the time of the Panic of 1857. 
One way of observing the increase of settlement of a territory 
is to see where new counties were established in the different 
years during the period. Unorganized counties were created 

* See the map for the location of these counties. 



TERRITORIAL GROWTH 



123 



in those parts of the territory where the population was not 
sufficient to justify regular county government. These counties 
were usually very large in area and as the population increased 
new county lines were run and the smaller areas given regular 
county government. By reference to the map of Minnesota 
Territory in 1849 ^^ ^'^^^ t>e observed that there were only three 
organized counties at that time and that these were in the 
region between the St. Croix and the Mississippi rivers. Most 
of the people of this region were connected either directly or 
indirectly with the "lumber trade" which was the principal 
industry in Minnesota during the territorial period. These 
men were, as a rule, tresspassers on the public lands and large 
amounts of timber were cut annually and floated down the 
rivers.^ No surveys of the public lands were made before 1853 
west of the Mississippi, but this fact did not prevent the settlers 
from crossing the river and taking up the fertile lands in the 
region ceded by the Sioux in 1851. The existence of organized 
counties in this region in advance of the surveys is evidence 
that squatters were taking up the agricultural lands west of 
the Mississippi and in the Minnesota river valley.* In 1852 
Hennepin county was organized west of the Mississippi at the 
Falls of St. Anthony, including the lands embraced in the 
city of Minneapolis.^ Pembina county was also declared to be 
fully organized in 1852. The legislature of 1853 organized 
several new counties out of what had been Dakota and Waba- 
shaw counties. By 1854 the surveys had been made in the 
southeastern part of the territory so that county boundaries 
begin to follow the survey lines; before that time they had been 
described by natural features only. Counties were organized 

'' Report of the Surveyor General to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, in 
Executive Documents, 23 Cong, i Sess. i :jo-j2. 

' "From the report of the surveyor general of Wisconsin and Iowa whose district includes 
also the Territory of Minnesota, it will be perceived that the emigration to that region is so 
great that it is impossible for the surveys to keep pace with the settlements." Report of Com- 
missioner of the General Land Office, 1854, p. 10. 

* "At the time that this county was organized (1852) it contained only thirty voters; at 
the election last October (1854) there were more than 400 votes polled. . . . The population 
of the county is now (1855) estimated at from 4,000 to 5,000." Minnesota Year Book, 1855, p. 27. 



124 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

each year and by 1857 most of the land in the Minnesota river 
valley and south to the Iowa line was pretty well settled.*" 
Land sales increased each year up to 1855 and then decreased 
until the Panic of 1857 when they became very small. During 
the decade, 1850-1860, some 1,812,196 acres of land were sold 
in Minnesota at an average price of I1.27 per acre. 

The first wheat shipped from Minnesota was in 1857 and 
some flour may have been sent out as early as 1858.** The 
city at the Falls of St. Anthony was, of course, destined to be 
the great "flour city" of the world, but this development did 
not come for many years after the decade under consideration. 
It was lumber mills, rather than flour mills, that caused the 
early growth of Minneapolis. Minnesota made the transition 
to agriculture during this decade*^ and wheat and flour increased 
in importance as the years went by. 

In the spring of 1 857 the people of Minnesota were expecting 
the usual movement of population from the East. It was 
reported in the territory that industrial unrest in the East would 
cause a large number of people to come to the Mississippi 
valley during that year*^ but when the Panic of 1857 occurred, 
immigration dropped off materially and there was a shifting 
of the population already in the region from the towns to the 
country, or, in other words, from industrial pursuits to agri- 
culture.** 

By i860 Minnesota had a population of 172,023, of which 
113,295 were born in the United States, of which number 
34,305 were born in Minnesota. Of the other States contrib- 

'" Minnesota Year Book, 1 853, p. 29. Also Report of Surveyor General, 1855, in Messages 
and Documents, 1855-56, Part I, p. 198. 

" Rogers, "History of Flour Manufacture in Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 9:38. Also Hill, "History of Agriculture in Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical Col- 
lections, 8:276-77. 

^^ Robinson, Economic History of Agriculture in Minnesota, p. 45. 

*^ Pioneer and Democrat, May 23, 1857. 

^* "St. Paul, the capital and largest city, is said to have lost half its population during the 
panic. This population was in the main transferred to agricultural pursuits and, as a conse- 
quence, the cultivated area was more than doubled in 1858 and in several counties more than 
quadrupled, while the population of the State as a whole increased only 6,000 as compared with 
an increase of about 50,000 in the previous year." Saby, "Railroad Legislation in Minnesota," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 15:31-32. 



TERRITORIAL GROWTH I25 

uting to the settlement of the State, New York still led with a 
total of 21,574, followed by Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, 
Maine, Illinois, Massachusetts, Indiana, New Hampshire, 
Michigan, Connecticut, and Iowa. Among the foreign born 
population, the Germans came first with 18,400, followed by the 
Irish, Norwegians, British-Americans, English, and Swedes. 
These foreigners settled especially in Ramsey, Fillmore, Henne- 
pin, Goodhue, Dakota, Carver, Houston, Winona, Washington, 
Rice, and LeSueur counties. Most of the Germans settled in 
the Minnesota river valley and the German element predomi- 
nates today in many communities in that section. 

It has previously been shown that Minnesota Territory 
was normally Democratic and that, except for factional fights, 
that party could have had control from 1849 down to the very 
close of the territorial period. It was expected that Minnesota 
would be a Democratic State and the leaders of that party were 
anxiously looking forward to the period of statehood with the 
increased number of offices to be filled. This pleasant poHtical 
dream of permanent control by the Democrats was shattered 
by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and the organiza- 
tion of the Republican party. The people of Minnesota, as 
elsewhere in the North, irrespective of previous party affilia- 
tions, divided on the question of slavery extension and the 
opponents of the policy embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill formed themselves into the Republican party. This move- 
ment took shape in Minnesota during 1855, and in the following 
year the new party gained control of the territorial legislature. 
There was a preliminary Republican convention held at St. 
Anthony on March 29, 1856, and a convention was called for 
July 25 to organize the party and to nominate a candidate 
for delegate to Congress. ^^ It was suggested in the call that 



" Minnesota Territory was represented in the Philadelphia convention that nominated 
Fremont in 1856. Dr. J. B. Phillips, of St. Paul, was on the committee on credentials, Ramsey 
was on the platform committee, and M. S. Wilkinson was chosen a member of the National 
Republican Committee. Fremont seemingly was not the first choice of the Republicans of 
Minnesota, although they, of course, would have no voice in the election. Daily Minnesotian, 
June 27, 1856. 



126 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the delegates to this convention be elected on July 4, "there 
being no better mode of celebrating that sacred day than by 
raising once more to the breeze the banner of Freedom so long 
obscured by the dark clouds of human bondage," Two issued 
were put forward in this call and all citizens regardless of previ- 
ous politics were urged to come into the new party. On the 
slavery question the circular stated: "That the tendency of 
our Government in late years and at the present time is anti- 
republican and in a directly opposite direction from that 
intended by the enlightened founders, and demanded by the 
inalienable rights of man, is too surely attested by the recent 
outrages of popular sovereignty in Kansas, and the unlimited 
extension of Human Slavery sought by the repeal of the Mis- 
souri restriction." The other issue was the liquor question and 
on this subject the circular contained the following statement: 
"That our fair Territory needs to be redeemed from the wither- 
ing blight of unrestricted traffic in intoxicating liquors is too 
well proven by our statistics of pauperism and crime having 
their almost only sources in this nefarious traffic." 

William R, Marshall, one of the principal leaders in the 
organization of the new party, was nominated to oppose Rice 
for delegate in Congress and it is generally believed that, except 
for the temperance plank in the platform, he would have been 
elected. The fact that he came so near to election in the first 
campaign after the organization of the Republican party and 
the further fact that the Republicans gained control of the 
territorial legislature thoroughly alarmed the Democrats. It 
was evident that the next test of strength between the parties 
would be a hard fought campaign. This test of strength came 
in connection with the formation of a State constitution and 
the transition to statehood. 

By 1856 the people of Minnesota had begun to feel that 
they were ready for statehood. Governor Gorman recom- 
mended that the legislature take steps for the formation of a 
State constitution and such a, bill was passed by the territorial 
legislature even before the passage of the enabling act by 



TERRITORIAL GROWTH 127 

Congress, but the bill seems to have been lost by the Com- 
mittee on Enrollment and was not presented to the Governor 
for his approval. The purpose of this move was probably to 
help force the matter on the attention of Congress rather than 
to actually attempt State organization. 

On December 24, 1856, Rice introduced into Congress a 
bill for the organization of Minnesota as a State and on Janu- 
ary 31, 1857, Grow, of Pennsylvania, reported as a substitute 
the bill which became the enabling act. This bill was in the 
usual form and gave Minnesota her present boundaries. It 
also provided for a constitutional convention, the delegates to 
which should be chosen on the first Monday in June, 1857. The 
convention was to meet on the second Monday in July and 
proceed to the making of a State constitution, if the delegates 
so assembled were in favor of statehood. The bill passed the 
House by a vote of 97 to 75 and, after considerable debate, 
passed the Senate by a vote of 31 to 22.^^ 

In the choice of delegates to the convention there were some 
seats contested and the composition of the convention would 
depend on the action of the committee on credentials. For 
this reason both Republicans and Democrats were exceedingly 
anxious to control the organization of the convention. Since 
the hour of the meeting was not specified, the Republicans 
assembled in the hall on Sunday night, July 12, and were in 
possession, waiting for the appearance of the Democratic 
delegates. At 12 o'clock noon on July 13 the Democrats 
appeared and the meeting was called to order by C. L. Chase, 
Secretary and acting Governor of the Territory. The Demo- 
crats promptly voted that the convention adjourn until 12 
o'clock noon of the following day and withdrew. The Repub- 
licans refused to recognize this adjournment and proceeded to 
organize themselves into a constitutional convention. On the 
following day at the appointed time the Democrats re-appeared 
but, finding the hall "in possession of a meeting of the citizens 

'" Congressiona/ G/oie, 24 Cong. 2 Sess.,201, 517, 519, 542,734, 808,814,860,877. 



128 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

of the Territory" who would not vacate the room at the demand 
of the Secretary of the Territory, adjourned to the council 
chamber in the opposite wing of the building and elected tempo- 
rary officers of the convention. Sibley was elected president 
pro tem of the Democratic convention, which adjourned from 
day to day until July 27, possibly waiting partly for Democrats 
to arrive to contest seats in the convention, but on that day 
they resolved that they constituted the regular convention and 
Sibley was elected president. ^^ The result was that two conven- 
tions were held,^^ but, since good models for State constitutions 
existed, the two conventions, drawing largely from the same 
sources, came to about the same results in the formation of a 
constitution for Minnesota. The chief matters of importance 
debated were the questions of boundaries and the suffrage. 
On the latter point the subject was in regard to negroes and 
aliens voting and some delegates even advocated that Indians 
should be given the ballot when they should declare their 
intentions of becoming citizens. Even the Republicans voted 
against extending the suffrage to negroes. ^^ 

The Democrats had the advantage because of the fact that 
the territorial officers refused to allow pay to the members of 
the Republican convention, who then adopted a more concilia- 
tory attitude. It was also feared by both parties that the irregu- 
larity of a double convention might prejudice Congress against 
the admission of Minnesota. Finally, on August 8, Judge 
Sherburne offered a resolution in the Democratic convention 
proposing a Conference Committee to meet with the Republi- 
cans and endeavor to heal the schism. This resolution was 
indefinitely postponed. On August 11, the Republican con- 
vention passed the identical resolution which Judge Sherburne 

^'' 'Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Minnesota, 1,2, ij, it. 

^^ The debates in both conventions were published and are in the library of the Minnesota 
Historical Socity. 

" The following clipping from the Chicago Times was published in the Pioneer and Demo- 
crat, Sept. 10, 1857: "The vote in the Republican convention in Minnesota on striking out the 
word 'white' in the clause conferring political rights on 'citizens' was, yea 17, nays 34. The 
convention unanimously resolved that negroes were born free and equal to the white man, but 
refused by a vote of two to one to admit the negro to the enjoyment of the equality to which 
they said he was born." 



TERRITORIAL GROWTH I29 

had proposed and appointed a Conference Committee of five 
to confer with a similar committee which they hoped the 
Democrats would appoint. Saner councils prevailed in both 
conventions and the joint committees agreed upon a constitu- 
tion.^" The Republicans, who were younger and less experi- 
enced men, seem to have bowed to the inevitable as gracefully 
as possible, although their work was actually further along and 
nearer completion than that of the Democrats. Sibley, in a 
farewell speech to the Democratic convention, claimed that 
the document agreed upon was essentially the work of the 
convention over which he had presided. ^'^ Neither convention 
had yet drawn up a completed constitution, however, when the 
conference committee was agreed upon, the conclusions of each 
on the various questions involved being only in the committee 
report stage. 

The constitution was referred to the people in an election 
on October 13, 1857, and was ratified by a vote of 35,140 to 
700.22 ^^ ^\^Q same time the people of the Territory voted for 
State officers. The Republicans nominated Ramsey for Gover- 
nor and the Democrats nominated Sibley.^^ In a speech before 
the nominating convention, September 16, 1857, Sibley expres- 
sed his views of the Republican party and the slavery question 
and pointed out the importance of the coming election. "Who 
are our opponents?", he asked. "The Republican party, so 
styled by themselves, comprise the Know Nothings, the Free 
Soilers, the Abolitionists, the Maine Law Advocates, in fact 
every wild and crude fanaticism of the day has there found a 
resting place, and the assemblage of discordant elements has 
no cohesive power except its common hatred for the Democracy, 

'" Journal 0/ the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Minnesota, 75, 83, 159. 

^' "It was adopted by our political opponents as it first emanated from this body, with 
few and unimportant changes or amendments." Pioneer and Democrat, Aug. 30, 1857. 

^ Debates and Proceedings of the Minnesota Constitutional Convention, G"]"]. 

^ "There is a propriety in the nomination of Mr. Sibley as a candidate for the first Govern- 
norship of the State of Minnesota, which must meet with general and cordial approbation. It 
is fit that the man whose efforts secured its existence as a Territory should become the recipient 
of the first and highest honors within the gift of our new-born State." Pioneer and Democrat 
Sept. 18, 1857. 



130 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

and its common desire for the spoils of office. We have been 
charged by them with being a pro-slavery party, an accusation 
which every man within the sound of my voice knows to be 
false. We deny the right of Congress any jurisdiction over 
this question and we deny its power to say to this or that State 
or Territory 'You shall, or you shall not, have this or that 
domestic institution in your midst.* We are all opposed to 
slavery extension so far as that object can be attained within 
the limits of the Constitution; but we hold it is the right of 
each State and Territory to settle these matters for themselves 
without interference from any quarter. This is one of the 
cardinal principles of the Democratic party." "Gentlemen, 
we have a contest before us," he said in closing, "which, 
politically speaking, is of more importance than will again 
take place for years. It would be a burning shame if we allowed 
Minnesota to enter the Union under Republican banners, there- 
by repudiating the great Democratic party which has strength- 
ened and supported us during our Territorial dependence."" 
The campaign was hard fought and frauds seem to have been 
committed by both parties, one being about as guilty as the 
other. The result of the election was in doubt for several days 
until returns could come from the Pembina region and other 
distant settlements. Finally it was announced that Sibley 
had won by a majority of 240 votes out of a total vote of 35,340. 
The Republicans did not concede Sibley's election and through- 
out his administration continually referred to him as the 
"Governor by fraud."^^ The Pioneer and Democrat announced 
Sibley's election in large headlines and affirmed that the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill, the Dred Scott Decision, President Buchanan, 
and Stephen A. Douglas had all been "endorsed" by the 
people of Minnesota. 26 

^ Pioneer and Democrat, Sept. 1 6, 1857. 

^ The Minnesotian, Jan. I, 1858, published the following clipping from the Dubuque 
Tribune (Democratic): "The certificate of election will be given to Mr. Sibley, but doubt exists 
whether he will accept it or not. His opponent, Mr. Ramsey, has undoubtedly received the 
majority of the votes cast in the territory. Some districts gave Sibley 100 majority where it 
has been proven that not a dozen voters live. Honesty is the best policy." 

^ Pioneer and Democrat, Nov. 3, 1 857. 



TERRITORIAL GROWTH I3I 

The bill to admit Minnesota into the Union was, after a 
long and spirited debate, passed by the Senate on April 7, 
1858, and by the House on May 1 1, 1858.^^ The news reached 
Minnesota on May 13, having been telegraphed to LaCrosse 
and sent from there up the river.^^ The State officers took their 
oaths of office on May 24, 1858, and Minnesota entered upon 
her career as a State within the American Union." 

^' It was claimed that the admission of Minnesota was delayed by the Buchanan adminis- 
tration in order to force Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Constitution at the same 
time that Minnesota was admitted as a free State. Minnesotian, Jan. 2i, 1858, printing a 
clipping from the Chicago Tribune of Jan. 16, 1858. 

"^^ Pioneer and Democrat, May 14, 1858. 

^^ The State administration, including the United States Senators, was Democratic. The 
Dubuque Tribune printed the following regarding the party: "It appears that the Democratic 
party of Minnesota is composed of two classes, Indians and Irishmen. In the election of the 
two United States Senators from that State, the other day, the greatest care was taken to do 
equal and exact justice to both win gs of the party. Accordingly, Mr. Rice was chosen as Sena- 
tor for the Indian division, or the breech clout Democracy, and Mr. Shields as the Senator for 
the Irish portion of the unterrified. This impartial and even-handed justice is very touching." 
Quoted m the Minnesotian, Jan. i, 1858. 



CHAPTER IX 
THE ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD TO MINNESOTA 

The period of Sibley's governorship was not a time of great 
prosperity, and the administration was not regarded as an 
unquahfied success. Several perplexing and embarrassing 
situations presented themselves which would have prevented 
a brillant administration no matter who was governor. The 
transition from territorial to state government was no sooner 
accomplished than the whole country found itself in the midst 
of the Panic of 1857 which fell with great severity on the new 
State. This situation continued during most of Sibley's admin- 
istration and prevented much real constructive work of great 
moment. Several important laws were placed upon the statute 
books, the most important of which dealt with such matters 
as education, the organization of the militia, and the regula- 
lation of banking; but by far the most important question of 
the time was that of railroads for Minnesota, involving the 
famous "Five Million Dollar Loan" of State credit.^ It is 
necessary to sketch briefly the history of the previous efforts to 
secure railroads in order to present this troublesome question 
in its proper light. 

For many years the people of Minnesota had tried to get 
railroad connections with the lines extending from Chicago 
to the Mississippi river in order to have a transportation system 
open the whole year through. As early as 1851, while Sibley 
was in Congress, the Territory had asked for land grants for 
railroads.^ No results were accomplished at that time and in 
1853 Governor Ramsey recommended that the territorial 

* The two best accounts of the "Five Million Loan" are, Folwell, "The Five Million Loan," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 15:189-214, and Saby, "Railroad Legislation in Minnesota," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 15:35-48. 

^ See Chapter VI above. 

132 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD I33 

legislature send another memorial to Congress on the subject. 
This was not done at the time, but the legislature did incorpor- 
ate five railroad companies which were never organized. In 
1854 the legislature again memorialized Congress for a land 
grant; at the same time it incorporated the Minnesota and 
Northwestern Railway Company and transferred to it any 
lands which the State might receive from the United States 
for railroad purposes. Most of the poUticians of Minnesota 
were interested in some way in this company. Congress acted 
favorably upon the memorial, but the act making the grant 
was drawn in such a way as to exclude the above named cor- 
poration from the land grant. The wording of the bill was then 
changed by the erasure of the word "and" and substituting 
the word "or" after it had left the House and before it reached 
the Senate. This change was made in order to enable the 
Minnesota and Northwestern Railway Company to receive the 
grant. When the piece of trickery was discovered, the whole 
act was repealed by Congress, and Minnesota was left without 
the immediate prospects of railroads. The railway company 
maintained that the repeal of the land grant was invalid, and 
that the act making the grant gave them title which could not 
be taken away. The territorial courts decided the question in 
favor of the railroad company, but the United States Supreme 
Court upheld the validity of the repeal.^ 

Altogether, fifteen companies were chartered by the legisla- 
ture during the territorial period, and not a single mile of 
railroad was constructed. Four of these companies were 
organized, and Congress was again appealed to for a land grant 
which was made shortly before the admission of the State. The 
act of Congress specified the routes, and the State was only to 
act as agent for the transfer of title to the companies. The 
grants were similar to the Illinois Central grant of 1850 in 
form. One route was as follows: "From Stillwater, by way of 
St. Paul and St. Anthony, to a point below the foot of Big Stone 

• Folwell, Minnesota, 124. 



134 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Lake and the mouth of the Sioux Wood river (the present town 
of Breckenridge), with a branch via St. Cloud and Crow Wing, 
to the navigable waters of the Red River of the North, at such 
point as the legislature of the said territory may determine." 
The Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company was organized 
on May 22, 1857, and the lands in this grant were conveyed to 
it. Another route extended "From St. Paul and St. Anthony, 
via Minneapolis, to a convenient point of junction west of the 
Mississippi, to the southern boundary of the Territory in the 
direction of the Big Sioux river, with a branch via Faribault 
to the north line of the State of Iowa, west of range sixteen." 
This road became the Minneapolis and Cedar Valley Railroad 
Company, of which Sibley was one of the directors. Still an- 
other route went "From Winona, via St. Peter, to a point on 
the Big Sioux river, south of the forty-fifth parallel of north 
latitude." This became the Transit Railroad Company. The 
other route extended "From La Cresent, via Target Lake, up 
the valley of the Root river to a point of junction with the last 
mentioned road (the Transit) east of range seventeen." This 
became the Southern Minnesota Railroad Company.* 

The outlook for railroads in Minnesota was regarded as 
very favorable when the Panic of 1857 came and changed the 
optimism into deepest gloom. Since the land was to be granted 
only as sections of the roads were constructed, the railroad 
companies represented that if they could only get the money 
to construct the first twenty miles of the road bed, they could 
then receive the land for that part of the road and use it as a 
basis of credit for funds to continue construction. A pro- 
vision in the State constitution, recently ratified, prohibited 
the loaning of the State credit to individuals or corporations. 
So great was the desire for railroads, however, and so sure were 
the people that the roads would be constructed if some financial 
assistance was extended to them that the provision was replaced 

* Folwell, Minnesota, i6i. Also Saby, "Railroad Legislation in Minnesota," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 15:7-8. 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD I35 

by a constitutional amendment which authorized a "loan of 
public credit" to the railroad companies.^ 

This "Five Million Dollar Loan" was a prominent subject in 
Minnesota politics for more than twenty years. The people 
of the State claimed that there was a distinction between a 
State debt for internal improvements and a loan of public 
credit, and insisted that it was never their intention that the 
railroad bonds should be paid by the State. A study of the 
contemporary newspapers leads to the conclusion that this 
contention was not well founded because the full consequences 
of their act was held up before them at the time that the amend- 
ment was up for ratification. The press of the State divided on 
the question at the time and the subject was thoroughly discus- 
sed pro and con, and if the people did not understand what they 
were going into it was simply because their enthusiasm for 
railroads blinded their vision as to the possibility of disaster to 
railroad companies with no better financial backing than the 
ones they propsed to deal with. The Pioneer and Democrat 
opposed the loan at first,^ but later come out in favor of it. 
The Minnesotian consistently opposed the loan all the way 
through and insisted that the railroad companies were not 
formed honestly to construct a transportation system for the 
people of Minnesota, but were speculative in character, the 
aim being to make money out of the construction work and 
from speculation in lands and town sites. It also told the 
people over and over again that the security for the State bonds 
was not adequate, and that the bonds would eventually fall 
back upon the State treasury for payment.^ The companies 
seem to have carried on an extensive propaganda; meetings 
were held in different parts of the State, and the Minnesotian 
insisted that they were gotten up by "interested parties."* 

*This amendment was adopted April 15, 1858, and the State was not admitted until the 
following month. 

^ Pioneer and Democrat, Feb. 9, 1858; Mar. 11, Mar. 14, and April 15, 1858. In the first 
issue mentioned the editor was not convinced, but in later ones he was. 

^ Daily Minnesotian, Feb. 25, 1858, a«d almost every issue until April 15, 1858. 

»/W</, Feb. 26, 1858. 



136 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Printed matter was furnished by the companies to be scattered 
broadcast over the State, and the charge was openly made that 
bribery had been used to get the amendment through the extra 
session of the legislature in the spring of 1858.^ The Mankato 
Independent^ March 19, 1858, said: "We cannot but look upon 
the scheme as a Great Fraud upon the people, perpetrated under 
the guise of facilitating operations upon the projected Railroads 
of Minnesota." In spite of all the argument against the propo- 
sition, the people of Minnesota were determined to risk all for 
the sake of railroads, and the amendment was adopted. The 
Minnesotian in considerable disgust at the outcome of the 
election printed the following editorial on April 16, the day 
following the election: "The populace, yesterday, in voting 
for the Loan of 5,000,000 of dollars to the Railroad Companies, 
went it with a mad and blind rush, only to be compared to that 
of a bull in a china shop . . . and all felt as good doubtless as 
Adam did when he ate the apple in Paradise." Sibley did not 
openly express his attitude on the question while it was before 
the people,^" but he stated several years later that he voted 
against the loan, notwithstanding the fact that he was one of 
the directors of the Minneapolis and Cedar Valley Company." 
The chief arguments in favor of the loan were summarized in 
a report of a select committee of the State senate, January 30, 
1 858, of which two thousand copies were printed and distributed 
over the State. ^^ This report stated that surveys for the roads 
had been made and "except for the panic of '57 the companies 
would have been able to construct thirty miles each, as would 
have afforded them a basis for the issue and sale of bonds for 
the rapid extension of the lines." Unaided, the companies 

* The Minnesotian, March i, 1858, quoted the Times as saying that 140,000 in stock had 
been used to bribe the legislature. The Minnesotian, March 23, made the statement also in an 
article on "The Why and Because of the ?5,ooo,ooo Swindle." 

^'^ Pioneer and Democrat, AyrW 18, 1858. 

'' Pamphlet on "United States Circuit Court in Equity," in volume on the "Five Million 
Loan," p. 49, in library of Minnesota Historical Society. 

^^ This pamphlet together with the above and twenty two others are bound together under 
the title "Five Million Loan." Most of the material for this chapter is taken from them and from 
the Sibley Papers. 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD Ijy 

would be unable to proceed with the construction of the roads 
for some time at least. "Hence an inevitable postponement 
of these important improvements, unless the aid of the State is 
extended for the purpose of placing our railroad interests above 
temporary depression which has resulted from the convulsion 
of 1857." The report also emphasized the advantages which 
would come from the spending of 15,000,000 in Minnesota; 
(a) markets would be stimulated; (b) means of liquidating 
liabilities to other sections of the country would be placed in 
reach of business men; (c) wages of labor would not depreciate; 
(d) immigration to Minnesota would be stimulated; (e) "and 
above all, there would be an amount of railroad construction 
sufficient to furnish a basis satisfactory to capitalists for the 
loan directly to the Companies of whatever funds are requisite 
to push forward our entire system of internal improvements to 
speedy completion." "All this can be effected within one year, 
every preliminary can be arranged before the opening of navi- 
gation on the Mississippi river; and instead of stagnation and 
corresponding depression in every walk of business or enter- 
prise, an opposite state of things pleasing to the patriotic 
citizen will certainly be induced, without sacrifice or injury to 
any interest, public or private." 

By way of security to the State the companies were to 
deposit with the State Treasurer first mortgage bonds, of equal 
amount, which were to be sold in case of default in the payment 
of interest on the State Railroad Bonds; or, at the option of the 
Governor, instead of the sale of the first mortgage bonds, the 
mortgage on the roads and their grants of land could be fore- 
closed. Also the net profits of the roads were pledged for the 
payment of interest. These were the principal arguments 
which influenced the people to vote for the constitutional 
amendment permitting the loan of State credit. The people 
overlooked the elementary facts that the companies had 
nothing back of them, hence a mortgage was worthless; also 
that there were no immediate prospects of net profits with which 
to pay the interest. The Senate Committee cited precedents 



138 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

of similar action by Tennessee and Massachusetts, and con- 
cluded that Minnesota was justified in extending credit "and 
that, too, a nominal liability, with unquestionable security to 
the taxpayer, and a certainty of effecting the salutary results 
already referred to." The people evidently listened to this 
argument rather than to that of the Minnesotian and other 
papers which opposed the loan. 

The aid was to be extended to the companies in the following 
manner. To each company the Governor was directed to issue 
^150,000 of special State bonds, bearing 7% interest, payable 
semi-annually in New York, redeemable any time after ten 
years. The companies were expressedly forbidden to negotiate 
these bonds except at par, and the proceeds from their sale 
was to be used in the location, construction, or equipment of 
the roads. On the companies complying with these conditions, 
the Governor was to issue $50,000 more of bonds under the 
same circumstances, but the total aid must not exceed 
$5,000,000, nor more than $1,250,000 to any one company. In 
case any company should default in the payment of interest, 
no more bonds were to be issued to it. 

The amendment to the State constitution was adopted by 
an overwhelming vote on April 15, 1858, and the promoters of 
the railroads immediately went East to raise the necessary 
capital. Funds were not forthcoming, however, as soon or as 
easily as the enthusiastic Westerners expected. W. A. Jones, 
one of the promoters, wrote to Sibley on May 15, 1858, from 
New York, that Wall Street required "much, very much time 
in which to consider and reconsider and to turn over & turn 
over again and again a business proposition than we western 
men do." He also wrote that the directors were trying to do an 
honest piece of work, and said that it would be much easier to 
arrange with "dummy" contractors "and leave the whole line 
when completed a rotten & insolvent concern. But, Sir, can 
you believe it that this determination on our part to make clean 
& honest work of it, is in reality the greatest hindrance we have 
to encounter? Strange, indeed, it is but true, Sir, as Heaven." 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD I39 

In his inaugural address, June 4, 1858, Sibley clearly stated 
his attitude in regard to the issue of State bonds. "Before any 
State bonds can be issued to these companies, they must pro- 
duce satisfactory evidence, verified by the affidavits of certain 
of their officers, that a specified amount of labor has been previ- 
ously performed upon their respective roads. As the guardian 
of the interests of the State, during my term, it is proper for me 
to state that, while I should avoid being unreasonably strict 
with these railroad associations, I shall require to be satisfied by 
unquestionable evidence, that they have complied as well with 
the spirit as with the letter of the amendment authorizing the 
loan, and that they are conducting their operations, as parties 
to the contract with the people of the State, in good faith, 
before I will consent to deliver over to them any portion of her 
bonds. "^^ 

Construction work was begun on June 10, 1858, between 
St. Paul and St. Anthony where grading could be done with 
little difficulty, and the people of the State believed that their 
hopes for railroad transportation were soon to be realized.^* 
Matters were not going well in the East, however, in disposing 
of the State bonds. On August 2, 1858, Isaac Atwater wrote 
to Sibley that the outlook was very discouraging, that the 
capitalists "have got the thing so bedeviled they do not know 
what they want, nor what is wrong about them now, but it 
seems as though a sort of impression was prevailing that some- 
thing about them is wrong, which in these times is enough to 
frighten anybody." By the latter part of August, the situation 
was beginning to get desperate. On August 23, Atwater again 
wrote to Sibley and urged him to come East in September and 
try to place the bonds or raise money on the company's respon- 
sibility. Two days later the necessity of a default on the part of 
the companies was suggested. J. W. Taylor, in a latter to 
Sibley, said: "The more I think of the matter. Governor, the 
more fully I am satisfied that the only way to prevent default in 

'^ Pioneer and Democrat, June 4, 1858, 
^'^ Minnesotian, June 11, 1858. 



140 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the payment of interest is to allow the companies to use their 
first mortgage bonds to provide means for making these pay- 
ments and to push construction to the point when the profits 
of the roads in operation will be adequate for the purpose. 
What I urge to enter on your executive Records will secure 
roads in operation — thus removing the only danger to which 
the system is exposed." 

By the last of October, about thirty-five miles of grading 
had been done, but the necessity of raising money was more 
pressing than ever. "We must have bonds or money without 
delay," J. W. North wrote to Sibley on October 27, 1858. A 
controversy had arisen between Sibley and the directors of the 
companies, and this was what was holding up the issue of the 
bonds. The difficulty was over the construction of the expres- 
sion "first mortgage bonds." Sibley insisted that the bonds 
turned over to the State Treasurer in return for the State 
Railroad Bonds should be prior lien bonds and not ordinary first 
mortgage bonds such as the companies might issue to other 
holders, as the companies were insisting upon. Sibley stood 
his ground until the Supreme Court of Minnesota issued 
peremptory mandamus upon him to issue $300,000 of State 
bonds to the Minnesota and Pacific Railroad Company upon the 
officers of that company turning over to the State Treasurer an 
equivalent amount of the company's first mortgage bonds 
without prior lien in favor of the State. ^^ Sibley, as chief execu- 
tive officer of Minnesota, was not bound legally to obey orders 
from a co-ordinate department of the government and his 
friends earnestly hoped that he would stand firm in his deter- 
mination to preserve the State's credit. "The State of Minne- 
sota has too much both for the present and the future at stake 
upon your decision to permit anything like retreat from the 
contest or quiet submission to the decision of any court (whether 
railroad judges or not)," W. G. LuDuc wrote to Sibley, Novem- 

'' Records, Executive Office, 18^8-1862, p. 63, in archives in the Governor's office. This 
situation gave the Minnesotian an opportunity to take the "I told you so" attitude, which it 
did in an editorial Nov. n, 1858. 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD I4I 

ber 20, 1858. "I was told while recently in St. Paul," he 
continued, "that you had determined to acquiesce in the deci- 
sion of the court & issue the bonds. I hope it is not true. The 
court cannot compel you to issue the bonds." Ramsey Crooks, 
Sibley's old friend of fur trading days, wrote to him on Novem- 
ber 22, 1858, urging him to stand his ground. "The attempt 
of the Rail R. Companies of your State to coerce you into the 
exchange of their bonds for those of the State, before the iron is 
laid upon their tracks is looked upon here as nothing less than 
an attempt to defraud & swindle the State and has already had 
the effect to throw suspicion upon her credit and place her in a 
false position. You have. Sir, a high duty to fulfill to yourself 
and country and let nothing deter you from doing so." 

The directors of the companies were very bitter against 
Sibley for his attitude towards the issue of bonds. "Your 
Railroad decision has capped the climax," J. J. Noah wrote to 
him from Washington, November 24, 1858, "and these infernal 
railroad swindlers consider you the only obstacle between them 
and the plunder of the State. They will do everything in their 
power to get you out of the way. Governor Medary told me 
this last week when he was here." Sibley's friends felt at the 
time that he made a serious mistake in giving in to the manda- 
mus. "It is reported here," H. Dollner wrote to Sibley from 
New York on December 2, 1858, "that you would probably 
have resisted the mandamus of the Supreme Court if you could 
have done it, and had you done it, you would have become a 
financial & political hero of the Andrew Jackson stamp. I had 
for a few days a strong desire that you should have come here; 
but since I learn that you have been obliged to submit to your 
courts and as it is known that you are V. President of one of 
the R. R. Cos. I fear that your presence would not give that 
weight which it certainly would have given had you been here 
with Dr. Borup."i« 

'* In 1871 while in the State legislature, Sibley made a speech explaining his reasons for 
giving in to the mandamus proceeding and expressing his regrets that he did not refuse to issue 
the bonds. See Chapter XI below. 



142 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

When Sibley decided to sign and issue the bonds, he deter- 
mined to do the next best thing in his power and ruled that the 
companies could receive only one-half the amount for grading 
and the other half when sixty-two and one-half miles of each 
of the four roads should be completed and the cars running 
thereon. The records in the Governor's office contain the 
affidavits of the railroad officials and reports from special 
engineers sent out by the Governor to inspect the work before 
he issued any bonds for construction work. 

In spite of the victory of the companies over Governor 
Sibley, capital was not forthcoming from the East. J. W. 
North again wrote to Sibley from New York, December 2, 1858, 
urging him to come East at once. "Almost all the papers of the 
city have attacked us," he wrote, "and nothing but a statement 
from the Governor can put matters right. The bare idea that 
there is a fight between the Companies and the Governor 
ruins the credit of the State. ... I am now loaded with calls 
for money from our company and contractors; but I cannot 
raise a dollar till you get here and assure the people officially 
that the bonds are alright. And how it is that you can take the 
matter so coolly I cannot imagine." Only two days later North 
again wrote to Sibley, and this time he was in the depths of 
despair. "Your delay has spoiled everything. Our credit as a 
State and as a company is ruined. If you had come, as you 
agreed to, we might have breasted the storm. But now I fear 
it is too late. . . . You might have saved us if you would; 
but you have chosen to let Dr. Borup direct & both our com- 
pany and our contractors are ruined. You can draw what 
comfort you can from such reflection; I confess I can get none." 

Sibley started East on December 8, 1858, to see what he 
could do in regard to negotiating the bonds, ^'^ but he was en- 
tirely unsuccessful. 1^ By January, i860, the bonds were selling 

1' Pioneer, Dec. 8, 1858; Minnesotian, Dec. 10, 1858. 

'* Sibley's testimony as reported in pamphlet "United States Circuit Court, Selah Cham- 
berlain vs. Southern Minnesota and the St. Paul & Sioux City RR. Co." p. 55, in volume on 
"Five Million Loan" in the library of the Minnesota Historical Society. Sibley ascribed his 
failure to the action of the Minnesotian. See also Chapter XI below. 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD I43 

at twenty-five or thirty cents on the dollar. ^^ The people of the 
State were entirely disgusted with the way things turned out 
and when the Republicans gained control of the State adminis- 
tration in i860, partly no doubt as a result of this railroad epi- 
sode during the Democratic administration, the legislature was 
hostile to the railroad companies. A committee of the legisla- 
ture made an extended report of the situation on February 3, 
i860, in which they said: "They (the companies) have not pro- 
ceeded according to the spirit of the amendment to insure the 
construction of the Land Grant Railroads. So far as your 
Committee can discover, the Companies, since the passage of 
the Loan Amendment, have not furnished one dollar of capital 
to aid in carrying on their gigantic enterprise. They have sold 
and hypothecated large portions of their bonds at ruinous dis- 
count. They have paid extravagant salaries to incompetent or 
inefficient officers. With the exception of about fifty miles of 
well built superstructure, incomplete, fragmentary and dis- 
jointed portions of grading, costing on the average less than 
$3,000 per mile, are all that these companies can show in return 
for the munificent issue of bonds made to them by the State. 
The State is immeasurably worse off today than if the Land 
Grant still remained in the State, and not a foot of ground 
broken. . . . The bonds issued to the companies have been, 
to a great extent, misapplied. . . . The credit of the State 
has been temporarily embarrassed, and the people have got no 
completed Railroads. . . . The three companies which have 
defaulted are without means or credit. Not a bond should 
have been issued to the companies unless they had the means 
and knew how they could complete the roads. It was not con- 
templated that they should construct a few miles of unfinished 



'® Dousman to Sibley, Jan. 26, i860. Dousman had bought some of the bonds at 50, and 
asked Sibley's advice about buying more. In his speech in 1871 Sibley said: "The failure to 
place the bonds in New York, except to a very limited extent, gave a finishing blow to their 
value in the market, although an effort was made to resuscitate them at home, where they were 
taken by the State Auditor as securities for banking issues to a limited extent, upon the presen- 
tation of affidavits of responsible citizens that bona fide &a.\es of the bonds had actually been made 
for ninety-five cents on the dollar." Speech reported in Pioneer, Feb. 9, 1 871. 



144 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

road beds which the elements would soon obliterate. A poor 
return this for, first, the liberal grant of lands donated by Con- 
gress, and, second, of $5,000,000 of bonds to be issued by the 
State. To expend the bonds without finishing the roads, at 
least in part, was a gross perversion of the object and purpose 
of the loan. . . . The greatest misfortune of the five million 
loan policy was the utter impracticability. In the first place, 
the loan was a great deal too large to be borne by the people of 
the State in its infancy, and at a time when a financial revulsion 
had paralysed the energy of the West. Again, the management 
fell into the hands of men without the business capacity or 
financial ability to accomplish their undertaking. . . . The 
great question, therefore, is, not so much what have been the 
errors of the past, as what shall be the policy of the future. In 
fixing that policy, two important questions demand solution. 
How shall the State secure herself against further loss and how 
shall the State dispose of her obligations."^'' The committee 
recommended that the State foreclose the mortgage on the road 
beds and pass an amendment to the Constitution for the settle- 
ment of the Railroad bonds. 

When Ramsey succeeded Sibley as Governor on January i, 
i860, he recommended a settlement of the bond question, but 
the people were determined not to pay them. The validity of 
the constitutional amendment was attacked because it was 
ratified on April 15, 1858, and the State was not admitted until 
May II, 1858. It was also claimed that the railroad companies 
were obligated to pay the principal and interest, and that the 
people of the State never intended that the amount should ever 
become a State obligation. The only action taken by the legis- 
lature was to propose two more amendments to the Constitu- 
tion, both of which were promptly ratified. One provided that 
the amendment of 1858 should be expunged, and the other pro- 
vided that no settlement of the Railroad Bond question should 
be valid until it had been approved by the electors of the State 

^^ Pamphlet No. 6, pp. 1-5, in volume on "Five Million Loan," in library of the Minnesota 
Historical Society. 



ADVENT OF THE RAILROAD I45 

by a referendum vote. In this form the question went through 
many years of Minnesota poHtics. Some $2,275,000 worth of 
bonds had been issued and still there were no railroads in 
Minnesota. Other attempts were made to reorganize the com- 
panies and secure the construction of the roads, but it was not 
until 1862 that the first line was put in operation, and that 
was only a short intrastate line.^^ 

'^ For the final outcome of the Railroad Bond question and its probable effect upon Sibley's 
public career, see Chapter XI, below. 



CHAPTER X 

THE LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS 
IN MINNESOTA 

The most serious Indian massacre in American History- 
took place in the valley of the Minnesota river in the summer 
of 1862. The uprising of the Sioux in their last stand against 
the white men for possession of the soil of Minnesota differed 
from other conflicts on the frontier chiefly in the area involved 
and the number of victims slain. Similar causes had produced 
similar conflicts over and over again as the pressure of popula- 
tion pushed the Indians farther and farther towards the setting 
sun. King Philip, Pontiac, Tecumseh, Black Hawk, and Little 
Crow all tried in vain to stem the tide of white immigration. 
The story of the frontier is a story of the conflict of two races 
and civilizations which could have but one ending, the removal 
or extermination of the interior race. 

The fundamental cause of the Sioux War, as of most of our 
Indian troubles, was the erroneous policy of the United States 
government in dealing with the Indian tribes.^ Deep dissatis- 
faction had been felt among the Sioux Indians of Minnesota 
since the negotiation of the treaties of 1 8 5 1 , and the Indians had 
not become reconciled to the settlement of the traders' claims 
which had been forced upon them at that time.^ The delay 
in the enforcement of the treaties increased the resentment of 
the Indians, especially the delay in the payment of the annuities 
in 1862. The Indians assembled in June of that year to receive 
the money and waited week after week while, as they said, 

' See Chapter VII above. 

* In September, 1862, when the Republican paper, The Minnesotian, was denouncing 
Sibley for the slow movement of his military forces. The Pioneer and Democrat rtt.aXia.ted by plac- 
ing the chief blame for the Sioux War upon Ramsey for his part in connection with the traders' 
paper. Pioneer and Democrat, Sept. 10, 1862. 

146 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I47 

their families were starving. The money did not arrive in 
Minnesota until August when the patience of the Indians had 
been exhausted and the outbreak was actually under way. In 
addition to these causes the existence of factions among the 
Sioux themselves no doubt helped to bring on the trouble. 
During the last years of Buchanan's administration Joseph R. 
Brown had been Indian Agent among the Sioux and had 
exerted great influence over them to the end that more of them 
than usual took up the ways of white men, or, in other words, 
became "farmer Indians." The "blanket Indians," those who 
retained their native customs, had a feeling of resentment 
against the former and against the whites for interferring with 
their wild life.^ With the election of Lincoln there was, as was 
usual in such changes of administration, a change in Indian 
officials. Great promises seem to have been made by these 
officials, which were not realized as the Indians expected, and 
this, together with the usual disregard of the rights of the 
Indians on the part of certain whites, added to the unstable 
situation on the frontier. Finally, the Indians knew that 
thousands of men had left the North for southern battlefields, 
and reports were current that the Northern arms were not faring 
well and that the Union would probably be dissolved.^ It has 
been stated, and was at that time believed by many of the 
people of Minnesota, that Southern agents were at work among 
the Sioux inciting them to insurrection, but no conclusive proof 
of this has been found. The Indians knew, however, that white 
men and half-breeds had left the region near the reservations 
to go South with the army, and it probably seemed to many of 
the Indians an opportune time for a decisive stand against the 
whites. Contemporaries were inclined to believe that plans 
had been made in advance by Little Crow, even involving an 
agreement with the Chippewas under Hole-in-the-Day, but the 
evidence does not substantiate such belief.^ It was realized by 

' Chief Big Eagle, "A Sioux Story of the War," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 6:385. 

■* A further evidence of weakness in the whites in the minds of the Indians was the failure 
of the United_ States to capture and punish Inkpaduta for his raid in 1857. 

* Several citations of authorities giving views that ihere was a prearranged plan are to be 
found in Minnesota History Bulletin, i :437, note. 



148 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the whites that there was a feeling of restlessness and dissatis- 
faction among the Indians which might lead to trouble, but 
seemingly the signs were but little more serious, if at all, just 
before the outbreak than they had been at any other time 
since 1851.^ 

While all of these general causes were operating which might 
have brought trouble on the frontier at any time, the actual 
beginning of hostilities in 1862 appear to have been quite acci- 
dental and came as a complete surprise to the settlers. There 
are several versions as to the scene enacted at Acton in Meeker 
county on Sunday afternoon, August 17, 1862. According to 
Chief Big Eagle, in his story of the war, some young braves 
came upon a hen's nest and one of them took the eggs where- 
upon one of his companions remonstrated with him because the 
eggs belonged to a white man and it might cause trouble for 
the Indians. The latter was then accused of being a coward 
afraid of the whites, whereupon, in order to show his bravery, 
he said that he was not afraid to shoot a white man and dared 
the others to go with him, the affair resulting in the murder of 
the first whites. The murderers, according to this story, then 
fled to their tribe and reported what had happened. The 
Indians then held a council and decided to go upon the war- 
path, since blood had already been shed.^ According to another 
story, six Indians, said to be of Shakopee's band of Lower 
Sioux, appeared at the home of Robinson Jones and asked for 
food which was refused them. Their action being threatening, 
Jones took his family over to a neighbor named Baker where 
there was visiting that day a Mr. Webster and his family. The 
Indians followed and proposed a shooting match which was 

® The general feeling of alarm had existed at least since 1857 when volunteer militia com- 
panies were organized. Flandrau to Huebschmann, April 16, 1857, in Commissioner of Indians 
Report, 1857, p. 72. Also Thomas Williamson to T. J. Galbraith, June 2, 1862, in Minnesota 
in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:162-163. Williamson urged that at least as many soldiers as 
usual be present at the payment of annunities in order to convince the Indians that the frontier 
was not wholly unprotected. Williamson thought that the restlessness among the Indians 
threatened trouble. 

^ Chief Big Eagle, "A Sioux Story of the War," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 6:389. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I49 

agreed to by the whites. They all fired at the mark and began 
reloading. The Indians finished reloading first and immedi- 
ately shot Jones. Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Baker were standing in 
the door and an Indian levelled a gun at Mrs. Baker whose 
husband sprang between them and received the bullet in his 
body. The Indians then shot Webster and Mrs. Jones. Mrs. 
Baker fainted when her husband was shot and fell backwards 
into the cellar, thus escaping being murdered. The Indians 
then went back to the Jones house and killed a young girl who 
had been left there and then returned to their tribe. ^ Once 
begun, the Indians moved with great rapidity and fell upon the 
settlers before they knew of any trouble. On Monday August 
18, there were massacres along the Minnesota river above New 
Ulm, and the latter place was attacked on the following day. 
On Wednesday Fort Ridgley was surprised, but, in spite of 
repeated attacks during three days, the place held out. On 
Saturday August 23 New Ulm was again attacked. The place 
was ably defended by Judge Flandrau, but on Monday August 
25 it was abandoned and the people taken to Mankato.^ 

The news of the outbreak reached St. Paul on Tuesday 
August 19, and Governor Ramsey immediately went to Fort 
Snelling where orders were issued for four companies of soldiers 
to start for the scene of the disturbance. On the same day 
Governor Ramsey appointed Sibley as Colonel in charge of the 
expedition.^" In spite of the fact that there were not enough 
troops and that what few there were, were inadequately armed 
and provisioned, so great was the panic on the frontier that the 
soldiers were started immediately up the Minnesota river. On 
the following day Sibley wrote to Ramsey that the Austrian 
rifles with which the men were armed were "a very poor affair" 
and that the ammunition was too large for the rifles and had to 

* Bryant and Merch, A History of the Great Sioux Massacre by the Sioux Indians, 84-85. 

' Minnesota Historical Collections, 9:439. 

^^ Ramsey to Stanton, Secretary of War, Aug. 19, 1862, in Records, ExecutiveOffice, 1858-62 , 
p. 590, in archives of the Governor's office. Also Ramsey to Malmros, Adjutant General, in 
Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:165. Also Pioneer and Democrat, Aug. 20, 1862. 



150 



TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 



be sent back to Fort Snelling. "We shall need more guns, 
more ammunition, and more men," he wrote." 

The settlers in the Minnesota valley abandoned their homes 
and fled in terror towards the Mississippi. ^^ Destruction and 
desolation were evident everywhere, and Sibley, realizing the 
seriousness of the situation, called continually for more men to 
crush the uprising. "There is no use to disguise the fact," he 
wrote, "that unless we can now, and very effectually, crush 
this rising the State is ruined, and some of its fairest portions will 
revert for years into the possession of these miserable wretches 
who, among all devils in human shape, are among the most 
cruel and ferocious. To appreciate this, one must see, as I have, 
the mutilated bodies of their victims. My heart is steeled 
against them, and if I have the means, and can catch them, I 
will sweep them with the besom of death. Don't think there 
is exaggeration in the terrible pictures given by individuals. 
They fall short of the dreadful reality. This very moment the 
work of destruction is going on within ten miles, and yet I have 
not mounted force enough to spare for chasing and destroying 
the rascals. "^^ 

About daybreak on September 3, 1 862, the Indians attacked 
a detachment of troops at Birch Coolie, and a very sharp 
engagement took place. After a few hours the Indians were 
driven into the timber from which they kept up a continuous 
fire for some thirty-three hours. On the following day re- 
enforcements for Sibley arrived and the Indians withdrew." 

As the great handicap of Sibley's force was the lack of 
mounted men with which to pursue the Indians, Governor 
Ramsey telegraphed to the Secretary of War for five hundred 
horses, and upon his refusal to supply them at once, he appealed 
directly to President Lincoln. "This is not our war," he said; 

" Sibley to Ramsey, Aug. 20, 1862, in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:165. 

''On August 22, 1862, Governor Ramsey issued a proclamation calling upon the people 
not to be unduly alarmed and flee from their homes in regions where there was no immediate 
danger. Records, Executive Office 1858-1862, pp. 634-636, in archives of Governor's office. 

'^ Sibley to Ramsey, letter published in Pioneer and Democrat, Aug. 26, 1862. 

'^ Letter from Captain Joseph Anderson to his wife, published in the Pioneer and Democrat, 
Sept. 7, 1862. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I5I 

"It is a national war. I hope you will direct the purchase or 
send us five hundred horses, or order the Minnesota companies 
of horse in Kentucky and Tennessee home. Answer me at 
once. More than 500 whites have been murdered by the 
Indians. "^^ 

Although unable to supply the mounted force at once, the 
authorities at Washington realized the seriousness of the situa- 
tion and created the military department of the Northwest and 
sent Major-General John Pope, who had recently been relieved 
of his command of the army of the Potomac, to take charge with 
headquarters in St. Paul. He was directed to "take such 
prompt and vigorous measures as shall quell the hostilities and 
afford peace, security, and protection to the people against 
Indian hostilities."^^ 

It has already been pointed out that the lack of men, equip- 
ment, and provisions caused Sibley's expedition to move more 
slowly than it otherwise would have done. The people of the 
State did not understand the reason for the delay and many 
well-meaning people unmercifully criticised Sibley for not 
taking immediate action against the Indians. The repubHcan 
press, and especially the Minnesotian, was particularly bitter 
against him.^^ While Sibley would have moved faster if it had 
been possible, yet hehad another object in mind which demanded 
cautious action on his part. The Indians had captured some 
three hundred prisoners, mostly women and children, and Sibley 
feared that hasty action on his part would cause the Indians to 
massacre all the prisoners. With a view of obtaining some 
knowledge of the number and the condition of the prisoners by 
inducing Little Crow to send a half-breed for a conference, 

'^ Ramsey to Lincoln, Sept. 6, 1862, in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian IVars, 2:225. 

*' Stanton to Pope, Sept. 6, 1862, in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:126. 

^' The Missionary Riggs expressed the situation clearly in a letter to Ramsey: "I became 
pretty well acquainted with the feeling that then existed in regard to this expedition — that the 
movements were too slow and cautious. I confess that I sympathized somewhat in this feeling. 
. . . In looking at the past and the present I am satisfied that Colonel Sibley has acted wisely 
in not advancing until he is well prepared for offence and defence. The safety of his command 
requires it. He is anxious to go forward at the earliest practicable moment. At the same time 
this necessary delay for ammunition is likely to work good in regard to the prisoners. If so, we 
shall none of us regret it." Minnesota in the Civil and Indian IVars, 2:226-1 . 



152 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Sibley left the following note on a stake on the battlefield of 
Birch Coolie: 

"If Little Crow has any proposition to make to me let him send a half- 
breed to me, and he shall be protected in and out of my camp." 

The half-breed came with the following letter from Little 
Crow : 

"Dr. Sir, 

for what reason we have commenced this war I will tell you. it is on 
account of Maj. Galbraith, we made a treaty with the Government a beg 
for what lettle we do get and then cant get it till our children was dieing with 
hunger — it was with the traders that commence Mr A. J. Myrick told the 
Indians that they would eat grass or their own dung. Then Mr Forbes told 
the lower Sioux that were not men then Robert he was making with his friends 
how to defraud us of our money. If the young braves have push the white 
man I have done this myself. So I want you to let the governor Ramsey 
know this. I have great many prisoners women and children it aint all our 
fault the Winnebagoes was in the engagement, two of them was killed. I 
want you to give answer by bearer all at present. 

Yours truly 
his 
Friend Little x Crow.""* 
mark 

On September 12, Little Crow sent word to Sibley that he 

had one hundred prisoners who were well cared for, and asked 

how he could make peace. Sibley demanded the return of the 

prisoners before he would consider any proposition of peace. 

At the same time two friendly Chiefs, Wabasha and Taopi, 

sent a secret communication to Sibley offering to turn over the 

prisoners if arrangements could be made. Sibley told them that 

if they would get the prisoners and all friendly Indians who 

were in Little Crow's camp out on the open prairie in day time 

and come to his camp under a flag of truce, they would be 

received by him. From this time until the prisoners were 

finally surrendered, two weeks later, Sibley was hoping for the 

friendly Indians to get an opportunity to get away from Little 
Crow. 19 

'* Published in the Pioneer and Democrat, Sept. 1 1/1862. 
*' Pioneer and Democrat, Sept. 16, 1862. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS 1 53 

In the meantime, the most serious battle of the campaign 
took place. Sibley left Fort Ridgley on September 19 and 
reached Wood Lake, near the Yellow Medicine river, on 
September 22. On the following day he was attacked by some 
three hundred warriors, but, after two hours of hard fighting, 
he succeeded in defeating them. One reason that more war- 
riors did not take part in the battle was because the group of 
"friendly" Indians who, as Sibley wrote, had opposed the war 
"but were driven into the field by the more violent," were 
looking for an opportunity to turn the prisoners over to 
Sibley.^o After the battle of Wood Lake, Little Crow and his 
followers fled, and the "friendly" Indians then had their oppor- 
tunity to surrender and turn the prisoners over to Sibley. The 
account of this surrender is best told in Sibley's own words: 
"I entered, with my officers, to the center of the circle formed 
by the numerous lodges, and seeing the old savage whom I 
knew personally as the individual with stentorian lungs, who 
promulgated the orders of the chiefs and head men to the multi- 
tude, I beckoned him to me, and, in a peremptory tone, ordered 
him to go through the camp and notify the tenants that I 
demanded all the female captives to be brought to me instanter. 
And now was presented a scene which no one who witnessed 
it can ever forget. From the lodges there issued more than one 
hundred comely young girls and women, most of whom were so 
scantily clad as scarcely to conceal their nakedness. On the 
persons of some hung but a single garment, while pitying half- 
breeds and Indian women had provided others with scraps of 
clothing from their own little wardrobes, answering, indeed, a 
mere temporary purpose. But a worst accoutered, or more 
distressed, group of civilized beings imagination would fail to 
picture. Some seemed stolid, as if their minds had been strained 
to madness and reaction had brought vacant gloom, indiffer- 
ence, and despair. They gazed with a sad stare. Others 

20 Sibley to Ramsey, Sept. 23, 1862, published in St. Paul Pioneer, Sept. 27, 1862. (The 
name of this paper was changed from Pioneer and Democrat back to the original name Pioneer 
on September 25, 1862.) 



154 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

acted differently. The great body of the poor creatures rushed 
madly to the spot where I was standing with my brave officers, 
pressing as close as possible, grasping our hands and clinging 
to our limbs, as if fearful that the red devils might yet reclaim 
their victims. I did all I could to reassure them, by telling them 
they were now to be released from their sufferings and freed 
from their bondage. Many were hysterical, bordering on con- 
vulsions, laughter and tears commingling, incredulous that 
they were in the hands of their preservers, A few of the more 
attractive had been offered the alternative of becoming the 
temporary wives of select warriors, and so, helpless and power- 
less, yet escaped the promiscuous attentions of a horde of 
savages bent on brutal insult revolting to conceive, and impos- 
sible to describe. The majority of these outraged girls and 
young women were of a superior class, some were school teach- 
ers, who, accompanied by their girl pupils, had gone to pass 
their summer vacation with relatives or friends in the border 
counties of the State. The settlers, both native and foreign, 
were, for the most part, respectable, prosperous, and educated 
citizens whose wives and daughters had been afforded the 
privileges of a good common school education. Such were the 
delicate young girls and women who had been subjected for 
weeks to the inhuman embraces of hundreds of filthy savages 
utterly devoid of all compassion for the sufferers. Escorting 
the captives to the outside of the camp, they were placed under 
the protection of the troops and taken to our own encampment, 
where I had ordered tents to be pitched for their accommoda- 
tion. Officers and men, affected even to tears by the scene, 
denuded themselves of their entire underclothing, blankets, 
coats, and whatever they could give, or could be converted into 
raiment for these heartbroken and abused victims of savage 
lust and rage. The only white man found alive when we reached 
the Indian encampment was George H. Spencer, who was 
saved from death by the heroic devotion of his Indian comrade, 
but was badly wounded. He said to me: 'It is God's mercy, 
that you did not march here on the night after the battle. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I 55 

A plan was formed, had you done so, to murder the captives, 
then scatter to the prairies' — thus verifying my prediction of 
the course they would pursue. I bless God for the wisdom he 
gave me, and whereby, with the aid of my brave men, in spite 
of all slander and abuse, I was enabled to win a victory so 
decisive, and redeem from their thraldom those unfortunate 
sufferers who were a burden on my heart from the first moment 
of the campaign. "21 

Along with the friendly Indians, some of those who had 
taken part in the massacres came to Sibley's camp. Of those 
who surrendered, Sibley reported to General Pope that sixteen 
were thus suspected. "If found guilty," he wrote, "they will 
be immediately executed, although I am somewhat in doubt 
whether my authority extends quite so far. An example is, 
however, imperatively necessary, and I trust that you will 
approve the act, should it happen that some of the real criminals 
have been seized and promptly disposed of."^^ 

On September 27, 1862, Sibley asked to be relieved of his 
command. In a letter to General Pope he stated that two of 
the objects of the expedition had been accomplished, the 
checking and beating of the Indians and relieving the settle- 
ments, and the delivery of the prisoners held by the Indians. 
He stated his belief that "a strictly military commander" 
would be better fitted for the task of following up and exter- 
minating the Indians than himself and said that his private 
affairs demanded his personal attention.^' Instead of Sibley 
being relieved, however, he was made a Brigadier General in 
the United States army and left in immediate charge of the 
expedition. 2^ 

General Pope shared Sibley's determination to exterminate 
the Sioux and remove once for all this menace to the frontier 

'' Sibley's Notes on the Indian War, published in West, Sibley, 276. 

^^ Sibley to Pope, Sept. 27, 1862, published in St. Paul Pioneer, Oct. 3, 1862. 

^^ Sibley to Pope, Sept. 27, 1862, published in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 
2:2 4-255. 

^* Halleck to Pope, Sept. 29, 1862, in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:258. While 
It was yet uncertain whether Sibley would accept the commission his officers petitoned him to 
do so. Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:269-270. 



156 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

of Minnesota. "No treaty must be made with the Sioux, even 
should the campaign against them be delayed until summer," 
he wrote. "If they desire a council, let them come in, but 
seize Little Crow and all others engaged in the late outrages, 
and hold them prisoners until further orders from these head- 
quarters. It is idle and wicked, in view of the atrocious mur- 
ders these Indians have committed, in face of treaties and 
without provocation, to make treatiesor talk about keeping faith 
with them. The horrible massacres of women and children 
and the outrageous abuse of female prisoners, still alive, call 
for punishment beyond human power to inflict. There will be 
no peace in this region by virtue of treaties and Indian faith. It 
is my purpose utterly to exterminate the Sioux if I have the 
power to do so and even if it requires a campaign lasting the 
whole of next year. Destroy everything belonging to them and 
force them out to the plains, unless, as I suggest, you can cap- 
ture them. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts 
and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises 
can be made. Urge the campaign vigorously; you shall be vig- 
orously supported and supplied. "^^ 

Sibley was handicapped still by the lack of provisions and a 
sufficient mounted force. On September 28 he wrote to Flan- 
drau: "I am, as usual, out of rations, many of my companies 
having no flour and bread. If I had been furnished with 300 or 
400 cavalry, I could have destroyed two-thirds of the hostile 
Indians after the battle of the 23rd. "^^ Two days later he 
he wrote to Pope: "The camp would be in a starving state but 
for the potatoes found in the Indian fields."" 

Early in October other bands of Sioux began to come in 
and surrender to Sibley. On October 7, Sibley wrote to Pope 
that thirty-seven lodges had surrendered, twenty other lodges 
were within ten or twelve miles of his camp, and that fifty 

**Pope, to Sibley, Sept. 28, 1862, published in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian fTars, 
2:257. 

2«7i;V/, 2:258. 
^' Hid, 2 :26o. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I57 

more were expected within two or three days. Meanwhile 
Sibley had created a court marital of army officers and was 
proceeding to search out those Indians who had participated 
in the massacres. "I have not yet examined t!he proceedings 
of the military commission," he wrote to Pope, "but although 
they may not be exactly in form in all details I shall probably 
approve them, and hang the villains as soon as I get hold of the 
others. It would not do to precipitate matters now, for fear 
of alarming those who are coming forward to take their 

h"'>S 
ances. -'* 

On October lo, Pope reported to Halleck that "the Sioux 
War is at an end." He added^that it would be necessary to 
execute many of the Indians as this procedure would have a 
"crushing effect." He also issued an address requesting all 
frontier settlers to return to their homes. ^^ He ordered Sibley 
to send all the Indian captives to Fort Snelling. This order 
caused Sibley to suspend the execution of those who had already 
been sentenced to death, about twenty in number, and to send 
them together with about fifteen hundred Indians to Fort 
Snelling.^" 

The attention of the authorities and the people of Minnesota 
now turned to the question of punishing the Indians who had 
been found guilty by the military commission. The settlers 
were almost unanimous in demanding the execution of the 
guilty culprits, and were not disposed to be too careful about 
absolute justice to individual Indians. When it became 
rumored about that President Lincoln intended to pardon 
many of the Indians, the people protested emphatically against 
such action. Almost alone among the people of the State, 

^ Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 1 i^Cj. 

^^ Ibid, 2:272. 

'" "Your orders relative to the disposition of the Indians will be obeyed as promptly as 
possible. ... As the order is imperative to send all below, I shall suspend the execution of 
the sentenced Indians . . . and dispatch them with the others." Minnesota in the Civil and 
Indian Wars, 2:273. There is a tradition in Minnesota that the condemned Indians were kept 
near Mankato until the time of their execution, but the author found no evidence that that was 
true. Neither was any order found revoking the above mentioned order to send all the Indians 
to Fort Snelling. 



158 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Bishop H. B. Whipple, of the Episcopal Church, raised his 
voice in behalf of the despised Indian. Whipple's ideas on the 
Indian policy of the United States Government were similar to 
those voiced by Sibley during his term in Congress. On 
December 3, 1862, he wrote an open letter to the editor of the 
Pioneer in which he pointed out that the white man was not 
entirely without blame for the unfortunate and distressing 
events of the preceding months. He indicated two serious 
mistakes on the part of the United States. "Our first dealing 
with them as a government," he wrote, "was based upon a 
falsehood. We purchased their lands as of an independent 
nation, forgetting they were only our heathen wards. . . . The 
second most fatal error was a natural inference from the first. 
Because we had treated with them as an independent nation, 
we left them without a government." No steps were taken, 
he said, to restrain their savage warfare; no mark of condemna- 
tion had been placed upon their pagan customs. The annuity 
system had not encouraged honest labor, and the sale of "fire- 
water had been unblushing when we knew that if it made 
drunkards of white men, it made red men devils." "The system 
of trade was ruinous to honest traders and pernicious to the 
Indian. It prevented all efforts for personal independence and 
acquisition of property. The debts of the shiftless and indolent 
were paid out of the sale of the patrimony of the tribe. If the 
Indian abandoned his wild life, built himself a house and culti- 
vated the soil, he had no redress against the lawlessness of wild 
men. . . . Such a mistaken policy would be bad enough in the 
hands of the wisest and best men, but it is made an hundred fold 
worse by making the office of Indian Agent one simply of reward 
for political services." Bishop Whipple affirmed that justice 
demanded punishment for the guilty, but "while we execute 
justice," he added, "our consciousness of wrong should lead us 
to the strictest scrutiny, lest we punish the innocent. Punish- 
ment loses its lesson where it is the vengeance of a mob. The 
mistaken cry to take law into our own hands is the essence of 
rebellion itself." He also discussed the removal of the Sioux 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I59 

which was being demanded by Governor Ramsey and the people 
of the State. "Many of these Indians have been removed 
again and again," he wrote, "and each time been solemnly 
pledged that this would be forever their home. If a removal 
were to take place, we ought to see that our nation does its 
whole duty, that they should have a strong government, an 
individual right to the soil, dijust system of trade, a wise system of 
civilization, and just agents. It is due alike to ourselves and to 
them that these systems shall no longer be foster-parents to 
mature savage violence and blood. Such a reform demands 
the calmest thought of the best men of the nation."" 

In vain was this eloquent appeal for calmness on the part 
of the people of Minnesota and for justice for any Indians who 
were not found guilty of participating in the massacres. On 
December 6, Sibley reported to the commander of the depart- 
ment as follows: "About ii o'clock on the night of the 4th 
instant the guard around the Indian prisoners at Camp Lincoln 
were assaulted by nearly 200 men who attempted to reach the 
prisoners, with the avowed intention of murdering the con- 
demned prisoners." Two days later he reported: "Combina- 
tions, embrasing thousands of men in all parts of the State, 
are said to be forming, and in a few days our troops, with the 
Indian prisoners, will be literally besieged. I shall concentrate 
all the men at Mankato. But should the President pardon 
the condemned Indians, there will be a determined effort to 
get them in possession, which will be resented, and may cause 
the lives of thousands of our citizens. Ask the President to 
keep secret his decision, whatever it may be, until I have pre- 
pared myself as best I can. God knows how much the excite- 
ment is increasing and extending. Telegraph without delay 
to headquarters. "^2 The situation called forth a proclamation 
from Governor Ramsey in which he asked the people not to 
show mob violence towards the Sioux prisoners. ^^ 

" St. Paul Pioneer, Dec. 3, 1862. 
'* Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, i:i(y>-i<)'i. 

'' Records, Executive Ojfice, 18^8-18(^2, pp. 636-638, in archives in the Governor's office; 
also published in the Pioneer, Dec. 7, i86a. 



l6o TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

President Lincoln called for the records of the military 
commission and after careful consideration of the evidence 
decided that only thirty-eight out of the three hundred con- 
demned Indians should be executed. This action called out 
additional protests from the people of the State and from Min- 
nesota's delegation in Congress. The action of the people of 
Minnesota provoked unfavorable comment by the press outside 
of the State. The Pioneer of Decemxber 7, 1862, contained a 
clipping from the Journal of Commerce with the heading 
"Minnesotians Ferocious": "The act of the President revoking 
the sentence of death against three hunred Indians in Minnesota 
for complicity in the recent murders in that State has aroused 
the indignation of the Minnesotians, and the newspapers 
generally urge upon the people to take the matter into their 
own hands and deal out vengeance upon all Indians in the 
State. The language of the newspapers is intemperate and 
defiant; it could not be more so if they were published in South 
Carolina. Is indiscriminate slaughter of Indians one of the 
reserved State rights of loyal Minnesota?" The Pioneer said 
that the people only demanded the execution of the sentence 
pronounced by the military commission, and not "vengeance 
upon all Indians in the State." The situation was well stated 
by the Pioneer of October 8, 1862: "The people have lost all 
confidence they ever possessed in 'friendly' Indians, and have 
not much left in those who style themselves 'Christian' Indians. 
If there are missionaries or traders who are willing to trust 
their lives in the hands of these 'Christian* or 'friends,' let 
them follow their proteges to the plains of the far west, and 
make what they can of them as proselytes and customers." 

The date of the executions was originally set for December 
19, 1862, but, the time being too short to make the necessary 
preparations, it was extended until December 26, 1862.^^ On 
that day the thirty-eight condemned Indians were executed on 
one scaffold at Mankato at the signal of a roll of drums, in the 
presence of several hundred whites and some Indians. No dis- 

'* Lincoln to Sibley, Dec. i6, 1862, in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian IVars, 2:292. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS l6l 

order occurred, the troops being drawn up In the form of a 
hollow square about the scaffold.^^ 

Various estimates have been made regarding the loss of 
life and property occasioned by the Sioux outbreak. The loss 
in life, including the soldiers, was probably about five hundred. 
Most of the upper Minnesota valley was desolated and almost, 
if not quite, depopulated,^^ In some counties provision had 
been made for the organization of county government before 
the outbreak, and such organization entirely disappeared." 
When the Sioux Commission was created to consider claims for 
damages arising from the outbreak, some 2,940 claims were 
filed, aggregating $2,500,000.^^ Appeals for the relief of the 
victims were sent out, and churches in Illinois, Indiana, 
Pennsylvania, New York, and New England sent aid of various 
kinds. Minnesota contributed $25,000 to the relief fund.^^ 
Part of the relief provided by Congress was for some of the 
"friendly" or "Christian" Indians. Contemporary opinion 
varied considerably as to the services rendered to the whites 
by these individuals who had given up their wild life and were 
trying to live according to civilized standards. There can be 
no question, however, but that many of the whites who survived 
the massacre owed their lives to these "Christian" Indians. 
It should be remembered that these Indians risked not only 
their property but even their lives in trying to save the whites. 
John Other Day was a notable example of this type of Indian. 
At the time of the outbreak he was living in a comfortable 
dwelling near the Minnesota river, had his land well fenced, 
and had a good crop of corn and potatoes. When he heard of 
the massacre he took instant action to save the whites. He 
assembled sixty-two men, women, and children, and conducted 
them some one hundred fifty miles to safety. Needless to say, 

** Sibley to Lincoln, Dec. 27, 1862, in Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars, 2:302. Also 
published in the Pioneer, Dec. 28, 1862. 

^ Minnesota History Bulletin, 1 1460. 

'^ Instances of this are revealed in the archives of the Governor's office. 

'* Bryant, and Murch, A History of the Great Massacre by the Sioux Indians in Minnesota, 
421. 

3'/^,</,435- 



l6l TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

all his property was destroyed by the Indians who were on the 
war path. Congress later appropriated ^2,500 to reimburse him 
for the loss, but this was generally regarded as inadequate to 
compensate him fully. ^^ No doubt there were many instances 
where the "friendly" Indians risked their all for the ideal that 
had been held before them by the missionaries. For want of 
historical evidence individual recognition cannot be given, and 
their story must remain largely an unwritten chapter in the 
history of the frontier. One of the saddest features of the whole 
affair was that when punishment was inflicted upon the Sioux 
it fell chiefly upon the innocent "farmer" Indians. The incon- 
sistency of the United States Government in its dealings with 
the Indians was fully revealed in the punishment placed upon 
the Sioux "nation." The government made war upon the 
Sioux, took prisoners of war, and then tried and executed them 
for murder. Not only this, but those who were not convicted 
of participating in the massacres were punished by having 
their property confiscated, being removed from the State of 
Minnesota, and taken to a new reservation on the Missouri 
river.^^ It is the old story of the triumph of civilization over 
savagery, a triumph of necessity accompanied by injustice 
to the inferior race. 

There still remained the task of pursuing and chastising the 
Sioux who had escaped to the western plains. For this purpose 
expeditions were organized in 1863 and 1864. Little Crow 
himself deserted the bands on the Missouri, wandered back to 
the Minnesota valley during the summer of 1863, and was shot 
near Hutchinson, Minnesota, on July 6, 1863.*^ The plan of 
campaign for 1863 involved two expeditions, one under Sibley 
and the other under Sully. The former was to go up the Min- 

*" Sibley, "Sketch of John Other Day," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 3:99-102. 

^1 Paxson, The Last American Frontier, 239-240. Also Bryant and Murch, A History of 
the Great Mnssacre by the Sioux Indians in Minnesota, 470-482. Also Minnesota History Bulletin, 
2:422. 

^^ A letter dated July 6, 1863, and signed "J. W. M.," describing the killing of Little Crow 
was published in the St. Paul Daily Press, July 10, 1863. 



LAST STAND OF THE SIOUX INDIANS I63 

nesota river and drive the Sioux westv/ard; the latter was to 
go up the Missouri river and head them off. It was hoped that 
this plan would cut the Minnesota Sioux off from communica- 
tion with the Dakota Sioux and would make possible the crush- 
ing of the former between these two military forces. Sibley, 
with a force of about 3,000, of whom 1,000 were cavalry, ad- 
vanced up the Minnesota river and headed for the region of 
Devil's Lake. He drove the Indians before him, either across 
the Missouri or into the British possessions. Sully's expedition 
up the Missouri was delayed, however, and the campaign as a 
whole was not successful. The battle of Big Mound was fought 
by Sibley's force on July 24, and the battle of Stony Lake on 
July 28, 1863. The latter was the most important battle 
fought on the northwestern frontier. There were probably 
2,500 Indian warriors engaged in the battle of Stony Lake, and 
their defeat no doubt had a good effect on the Indians of the 
Dakota region. The force was scattered but not destroyed, 
and this made necessary another campaign in 1864. The 
latter campaign also failed to crush the Sioux completely.^^ 
It was believed that the Indians received not only refuge in 
British territory, but actual assistance from British traders. 
In his report of the expedition of 1864, Sibley regarded this 
situation as largely responsible for the continuance of hostilities 
on the part of the Indians. He stated that "the British Govern 
ment still permits her majesty's territories to be made a refug 
of the murdering bands who disturb the peace of our frontier, 
from the pursuit of the troops under my command, and these 
savages are in constant and open communication with British 
traders, who furnish them with ammunition and other articles 
with which to carry on the war with our government without 
lot or hindrance by the local authorities. Indeed, the half- 
breed subjects of her Britannic Majesty traverse our own do- 
main in every direction for purposes of trading and hunting, 
and are thus directly interested in the continuance of hostilities 
between us and the upper bands of Sioux Indians, and it is 

*' Bryant and Murch, A History of the Great Massacre by the Sioux Indians in Minnesota, 
491. Also Minnesota in the Civil and Indian IVars, 2:297-304; 310. 



164 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

known that they foment discontent with the Chippewas with 
whom they come in contact by representation that they are 
defrauded by the United States Government by payment in 
paper instead of coin, of the m.oney due them under the treaty 
stipulations."^^ 

Occasional raids into Minnesota occurred during 1863 and 
1864 and caused very much dissatisfaction on the part of many 
settlers of Sibley's management of the frontier situation. The 
raiding bands were small and succeeded in slipping through 
Sibley's lines and committing occasional murders in isolated 
settlements. Some of the newspapers of the State criticised 
Sibley's disposition of troops along the frontier. Under date 
of May 13, 1863, an unsigned letter was sent to Sibley calling 
upon him to resign his command and let someone have it who 
could give adequate protection,^^ The settlers were unreason- 
able in that they expected Sibley with the small force under 
his command to guard adequately every frontier settlement at 
all times. Governor Miller, of Minnesota, recognized that 
Sibley's force was "not sufficient to protect the six or seven 
hundred miles of frontier which is exposed to savage raids," and 
asked Secretary of War Stanton to increase the number of men 
in Sibley's command. 

With the closing of the Civil War in 1 865 the Indian hostili- 
ties were gradually brought to a close. Sibley closed his mili- 
tary career in 1 865 and retired to private life. With the passing 
of time the people of Minnesota generally recognized both the 
difficulties under which Sibley worked and the ability with 
which he solved the problems which confronted him in over- 
coming the last desperate stand of the Sioux for the possession of 
the soil of Minnesota. 

"/^;J, 2:525-526. 

** "The enclosures are sent you to show you the feeling of the press. They show but faintly 
the indignation of an outraged people who charge upon you the blood of hundreds of poor 
murdered victims. If you will not punish the Indians why for God's sake dont you resign & 
let some one have your place who will save this country from desolation from the savages. Will 
you not do something to atone for causing by your neglect so many murders? The circulars 
are from two Republican & two Democratic papers. Read and profit by it." This letter is 
found among the Sibley Papers. The clippings are also found with the letter and were from the 
Mankato Union, the Winnebago City Homestead, the Faribault Central Republican, and the 
LeSueur Statesman. The St. Paul Pioneer, as usual, defended Sibley against these attacks. 



CHAPTER XI 

PIONEER DREAMS COME TRUE 

Although the most important part of Sibley's career closed 
with his retirement from the army, yet many years of useful- 
ness remained to him, and he was active and public spirited 
practically until the time of his death. As a sequel to his 
military career, he was a member of the Commission which 
negotiated the treaties of peace with the Sioux in 1865 and 
1866 at Council Bluffs and Sioux City.^ Most of the remaining 
years of his life were given to private business. He was presi- 
dent of the St. Paul Gas Light Company, president of the 
Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Company, of St. Paul, 
which later consolidated with the Northwestern Mutual Life 
Insurance Company, of Milwaukee, and also, for a time, presi- 
dent of the St. Paul City Bank. His private business, however, 
did not prevent his rendering service to the community in which 
he lived. He was president of the Chamber of Commerce, of 
St. Paul, for many years, retiring at his own request, in 1880, 
and with the regrets of members of the organization. The 
most important public services which he rendered to the State, 
after 1865, were as a representative in the State legislature, 
for one term, and as a regent of the University of Minnesota, 
a position which he held by appointment from successive 
Governors, all of whom were Republicans.^ He was President 
of the Board of Regents from 1876 until the close of his active 
career. In 1876 he tendered his resignation, but, at the earnest 
request of the Governor, J. S. Pillsbury, and the President of 

' Documents relating to this subject are published in West, Sibley, 338-342. 
'^ His commissions as Regent of the University of Minnesota are in the Sibley Paper? 
(Misc.). 

165 



l66 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

the University, W. W. Folwell, he consented to continue his 
services.^ 

Sibley's term in the State legislature was in 1871, at a time 
when strenuous efforts were being made to bring about a 
settlement of the State Railroad question. For some years 
after the adoption of the amendment prohibiting any action 
looking towards a settlement without a referendum to the 
electors of the State, nothing was done. In 1867, a plan was 
suggested which seemed to open a way for the payment of the 
bonds. It was discovered that an act of Congress, in 1841, 
had provided for a grant of 500,000 acres of land to certain 
States for internal improvements and that Minnesota was 
entitled to such a grant. Governor Marshall recommended that 
the proceeds from the sale of these lands be used for the settle- 
ment of the railroad indebtedness. Sibley, through the columns 
of the Pioneer^ argued in favor of the plan and appealed to the 
people to seize this opportunity to clear the reputation of the 
State from the charge of repudiation.* This proposition was 
rejected at the time, and in 1870 Sibley accepted a seat in the 
lower house of the legislature for the purpose of trying to 
influence that body to take favorable action on the question. 
On February 4, 1871, he introduced a resolution in favor of a 
just and fair settlement with bond-holders, and four days later 
he delivered a speech in which he admitted that he was advo- 
cating the unpopular side of the question and also that one of 
his objects in coming to the legislature was, as he said, "to 
vindicate myself and the administration of which I was chief 
from the numerous and baseless charges which have been 
made from time to time through a long series of years, of fraud, 
or to say the least, of irregularity in placing these State obliga- 
tions in the possession of railroad companies, as required by 

^ "General: On receiving your letter on Saturday I went at once to Governor Pillsbury and 
begged him on behalf of the faculty not to accept your resignation. Your retirement from the 
board at this time would be a great calamity to the institution. No new man, however great 
his natural abilities, can perform the services which your long experience and acquaintance with 
the affairs of the University enable you easily to render. Your place cannot be filled. . . ." 
Folwell to Sibley, May 21, 1876. 

* St. Paul Pioneer, May i, 1867. 



PIONEER DREAMS COME TRUE 167 

the amendment to the fundamental law." He recited briefly 
the history of the whole question, including his stand in favor 
of prior lien bonds until the mandamus was issued by the 
Supreme Court. "This is the only phase in the history of the 
case," he said, "which has left behind it a feeling on my part 
of dissatisfaction. I then doubted, and the doubt has since 
increased until it has become almost a certainty, whether the 
action of the Supreme Court was not an infringement upon the 
rights and responsibilities of a co-ordinate branch of the State 
Government." Sibley stated that the Attorney General at the 
time informed him that he was estopped from denying the 
authority of the Supreme Court after having instructed the 
Attorney General to appear in behalf of the State. He also 
said that he did everything in his power as governor to guard 
the security of the State, and that "in no instance were State 
bonds issued to the respective companies until they had com- 
plied with every prescribed condition." He stated it as his 
belief that the bonds would have been placed with responsible 
banking firms in New York and that the plan for the construc- 
tion of the roads might have been successful except for the 
violence with which the RepubHcan press of the State attacked 
them.^ He also stated that the affairs of the railroad companies 
were better managed than had generally been believed.^ He 
closed his speech with an appeal to the people of the State to be 
honest in meeting their legal obligations. 

At the preceeding session of the legislature, an act was 
passed authorizing the use of the 500,000 acres of land, as 
Governor Marshall had recommended in 1867, but, upon its 

^ In speaking of his trip East to help place the bonds Sibley said: "I remained there two 
months at my own cost. ... I had nearly completed an arrangement with a leading banking 
firm . . . when all my efforts . . . were rendered abortive by a furious editorial in the Minne- 
sotian, which was sent to the firm . . . denouncing in the most violent terms, the bonds and 
everyone connected with them." The Republican papers warned the capitalists that if they 
purchased the bonds "it would be at their own peril for repudiation was sure to follow." 

' "They (the companies) have, in my judgment, been most unjustly denounced as swind- 
ling corporations. . . . They never received a State bond which they had not fairly earned and 
if they failed in their engagements, it was owing to the fact that the bonds upon which they 
depended mainly to secure means to prosecute their work, were turned to ashes in their grasp, 
and rendered valueless by the unholy war waged upon them by our own citizens." 



l68 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

being referred to the electors as provided in the constitutional 
amendment, it was rejected. The legislature in 1871 passed 
an act again submitting a plan of settlement, but it also was 
rejected. In 1876, Governor Cushman K. Davis, in his last 
message to the legislature, urged that some settlement be made 
with the bond-holder. "Let us meet our responsibilities," 
he said, "as becomes a great state holding her honor dearer 
than anything else. There is a higher rule of action which 
requires that states, no less than men, shall do justice, no matter 
how onerous the responsibility and the performance."^ Gover- 
nor Davis was succeeded by Governor J. S. Pillsbury, and the 
latter made it a chief object of his administration to secure a 
settlement of this question. Again and again he urged that 
Minnesota make some plan of settlement and clear her good 
name from the disgrace of repudiation. Finally, in 1880, the 
bond-holders, chief of whom was Selah Chamberlain, offered 
to settle with the State at fifty cents on the dollar. Governor 
Pillsbury, on January 6, 1881, again appealed to the legislature 
to take action. "I implore the people of Minnesota," he said, 
"and you, gentlemen, their representatives, to seize this last 
opportunity, before it is too late, to wipe out this only blot from 
the fair name of our beloved state. "^ As it seemed impossible 
to get any settlement under the repudiating amendment to 
the constitution, the legislature passed an act for the creation 
of a special tribunal to pass upon the question as to the binding 
power of the repudiating amendment. After some difficulty in 
getting judges to serve on this tribunal, and after its competency 
had been challenged, the Supreme Court finally decided that the 
repudiating amendment was against the spirit of the provision 
of the United States Constitution prohibiting a state from 
impairing the obligation of a contract. The legislature then 
passed an act authorizing the issue of a special series of bonds 
known as "Minnesota state railroad adjustment bonds," and 
a bill for the use of the proceeds of the 500,000 acres of internal 

' Executive Documents, State of Minnesota, 1878, 41-42. 
^Uid, 1881,39. 



PIONEER DREAMS COME TRUE 169 

improvement land. The latter act was referred to the electors, 
and received a vote of 31,011 for, and 13,589 against, in an 
election where the total vote cast was 150,484, On this basis, 
the State then accepted the offer of settlement at fifty cents on 
the dollar, together with the accrued interest, and at last the 
dream of the leading men to see Minnesota's reputation cleared 
from the stain of repudiation was a reality.^ An unbiased 
study of the whole question leads to the conclusion that Sibley's 
motives were honorable throughout, and that it was unjust to 
his administration to place so much blame for the five million 
loan episode as was done at the time by the press hostile to his 
administration. When he gave in to the mandamus proceed- 
ings he committed the only act for which he can be blamed, 
but even then he was doing what the people of the State proba- 
bly wanted done. It is the old story that there must be a 
scape-goat for every great undertaking which does not succeed, 
and it fell to Sibley to play the part of the scape-goat. Although 
the State was strongly republican after i860, and Sibley was a 
Democrat, and it is impossible to state what Sibley's career 
might have been without this episode, still it seems reasonable 
to conclude that the railroad bond question injured Sibley's 
standing in the political life of the State. 

Railroad construction went forward by leaps and bounds 
in the decade following the Civil War, and when the people 
began to feel that railroads were a reality they found that 
unjust discriminations and exorbitant freight rates deprived 
them of many of the advantages which they had hoped to 
secure by having an outlet for their surplus products. As a 
result, the Granger movement received considerable support 
from the farmers of Minnesota. ^° In spite of the difficulties 
over the adjustment of railroad rates, however, and even in 
spite of the effects of the Panic of 1873, the two decades fol- 
lowing the Civil War witnessed a marvelous growth of Minne- 

' The last bonds which were exchanged for the Railroad Bonds were paid in i 9 lo and th 
question was then finally settled. 

"" See Buck, Granger Movement, in Harvard Historical Series. 



170 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

sota. The population which in i860 had been only 172,023 
increased to 439,706 in 1870, to 780,773 in 1880, and by 1890, 
about the time of Sibley's death, was 1,501,826. The develop- 
ment of agriculture and mining was as remarkable as the 
growth in population. The labors of the pioneers to carve 
out of the wilderness a great State had been rewarded with 
success, and the pioneer dreams had come true. 

The last years of Sibley's life were peaceful and happy. 
The period of "storm and stress" was over, and the bitterness 
of the rivalries of pioneer days was gone. The people of the 
State generally recognized the greatness of his work, and he 
was regarded as "the first citizen of Minnesota." One of the 
most pleasant social events of his later years was the banquet 
given in his honor, on November 7, 1884, celebrating the 
semi-centennial anniversary of his advent into the upper Mis- 
sissippi country. Among the guests were the most distinguished 
men and women of Minnesota. A brief address was made by 
Ex. Governor C. K. Davis, and Sibley replied to it, closing 
his remarks with the following words: "My public and private 
record has been made up, and faulty and imperfect as it may 
be, it is now too late to alter or amend it. I thank God that he 
has spared me to see the fiftieth anniversary of my advent to 
what is now Minnesota, and to witness the transformation of 
this region from a howling wilderness, tenanted alone by wild 
beasts and savage men, into a proud and powerful common- 
wealth; and I especially thank Him for surrounding me in the 
evening of my days with troops of loving friends of both sexes, 
who overlook my many imperfections in their desire to smooth 
my pathway to the grave. It is a great consolation to me that 
I can leave my children the heritage of an honest name, and to 
my^many friends a remembrance, not only of my devotion to 
them, but of my earnest and long-continued labors to advance 
the interests and welfare of our beloved Minnesota. . . ."^^ 

Thus surrounded by admiring friends, Sibley spent the 
evening of his life by his fireside, living over again in his dreams 

" Quoted in West, Sibley, 369-370. 



PIONEER DREAMS COME TRUE I7I 

the many stirring scenes of his active career, and serenely 
contemplating the future. He was always a religious man. 
Brought up in a home which, while western, was typically 
New England in this respect, and living so near to nature as 
he had done, it could not well have been otherwise. Religious 
sentiments were frequent in his writings and public utterances, 
and, while even his last years were more or less active ones, he 
watched the approach of death with quiet resignation and 
perfect calm. He died on February i8, 1891, universally 
mourned by the people of the great State for which he had 
labored so long and in the making of which he had taken such 
a distinguished part. 

Retrospect 
The aim of this study has been not only to follow the life 
of Sibley, but also to attempt to portray, as he and other 
pioneers saw it, the gradual evolution of society and industry 
in the upper Mississippi country. The rapidity with which 
the West was settled is most vividly appreciated when viewed 
in terms of human life. In 1795, when Solomon Sibley came 
over the mountains to the first American frontier settlement 
northwest of the Ohio river, the history of the great West, the 
real American West, was only in the period of beginnings. 
Before his son died, in 1891, the frontier had disappeared. 
When Sibley, in 1834, made his way into the region which be- 
came Minnesota it was a typical Indian frontier; when he 
died, Minnesota was a State with a population of almost one 
and one-half millions. As Sibley well said in his later life: 
"Our State has sprung into existence so recently that a few of 
us yet living have participated in or witnessed each step of her 
progress from pre-territorial times, when a few hundreds of 
men employed in the fur trade were all the whites to be found 
in the country, to the present time."^^ The settlement and 
development of the region had been so rapid that even those 
who had witnessed it could scarcely realize the transformation 
that had taken place before their very eyes. "It is scarcely 

'* Sibley, "Memoir of H. L. Dousman," in Minnesota Hisotrical Collections, 3:194- 



172 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

possible for such of my readers, as are not old settlers," Sibley 
wrote, "to appreciate the changes made within the last two 
decades in this Territory and State. Even as late as 1850 there 
were neither bridges nor ferries, and but few common roads 
other than foot trails of the red men who then asserted owner- 
ship of all the country west of the Mississippi except the mili- 
tary reservation at Fort Snelling. ... In contrasting such a 
state of things with the present facilities for travel, exemption 
from danger, and the luxuries to be obtained in all the inhabited 
portions of the State, you may be enabled to form some faint 
conception of the amazement with which the transformation 
is regarded by the old settlers. To me, I must confess, it seems 
more like a pleasant dream than a reality. "^^ 

The men who had made possible the great development 
and who had lived through all the stages of civilization from the 
fur traders' frontier were not without hope as to the future. 
While they fully appreciated what had already been done, they 
believed that Minnesota had greater days before her, and with 
confidence they trusted the coming generations to build upon 
the foundation which they had laid. No more fitting close 
can be made to this story of pioneer days than this spirit of 
hopefullness which found expression in Sibley's own words: 
"The retrospect, however satisfactory and indeed brilliant, in 
view of the rapid advance of the State in population and wealth, 
is not without its sad and melencholy aspects to such of the old 
settlers as yet remain. We miss from our companionship 
many a noble specimen of manhood who struggled and fought 
with us for the prosperity of our beloved Minnesota. They 
have gone the way of all the earth, and those of us who still 
live are daily admonished that our course also will soon be 
finished. It is a source of great comfort, as the shadows of 
death approach to encompass us, to be assured that the desti- 
nies of the commonwealth we have loved so long and so well 
will be left in the hands of a generation competent and deter- 

" Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days of Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 3:276. 



PIONEER DREAMS COME TRUE I73 

mined to control them, with the aid of a good providence, in 
the interests of moraHty and rehgion for the welfare of our 
children and of the great State and nation and reflectively of 
the whole human family."^'* 

^* Sibley, "Reminiscences of the Early Days of Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 3:276-77. 



CHAPTER XII 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I. Manuscript Material 

Sibley Papers. This material consists of several thousands of papers 
preserved by Sibley, including his correspondence, from about 1830 
and is particularly valuable for the history of the fur trade and for 
territorial politics. After Sibley retired from Congress in 1853 he 
remained in Minnesota, for the most part, and his correspondence is, 
therefore, not so extensive as while he was in Washington. About the 
same time he closed up his connection with the fur trade and the 
Papers cease to be valuable for that study. These Papers contain 
much valuable material for the history of the Northwest. Sibley 
carefully preserved his commissions of various kinds, maps, manu- 
scripts of his writings, &c., and these are to be found in this collection. 

Legers, Journals, and Cash Books of the American Fur Company. These 
are to be found in the manuscript department of the library of the 
Minnesota Historical Society, along with the Sibley Papers, and are 
very valuable for the history of the fur trade in the upper Mississippi 
valley after Sibley's arrival at Mendota in 1834. 

Sibley's Order Book, 1862. This covers the operations against the 
Sioux during the campaign of 1862. 

Ramsey Papers. This collection of historical material is also in the 
possession of the Minnesota Historical Society. It contains many of 
Sibley's letters during the period 1 849-1 853 and is particularly valu- 
able for territorial politics. 

Taliaferro Papers. These papers belonged to Major Taliaferro who was 
Indian Agent at Mendota from 18 19 to 1840. They throw light on the 
Indian relations and incidentally on the fur trade. Some of Sibley's 
letters are there. This collection is also in the library of the Minnesota 
Historical Society. 

Archives in the Governor's Office, St. Paul, Minnesota. For a full 
description of these archives see Keller, Herbert A., "A Preliminary 
Survey of the More Important Archives of the Territory and State of 
Minnesota," in American Historical Association Report, 1914, 1:389- 
402. 
II. Public Documents 

The American State Papers, Indian Affairs. Volumes I and II, under 
titles such as "Indian Trade," "Factories," "Agents," &c. furnish 
material on the general subject of Indians and the fur trade, some of 
which is valuable for this study. Volume II, pages 54-66 contains 
Schoolcraft's "Report on the Fur Trade on the Missouri, 1815-1830." 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 175 

Annual Reports oj Commissioner of Indian Affairs. This contains the 
reports made to the Commissioner by the Superintendents and Agents. 
They are found in the Reports oj the Secretary of the Interior smce 
1 849 They are, of course, valuable for the study of Indian relations. 

Congressional Globe. The agth, 30th, and 31st Congresses cover the 
period of Sibley's Congressional career as Delegate from Minnesota 
Territory and contain several of his speeches, together with the debates 
on the Minnesota Bill and other measures in which Sibley was inter- 

CStCQ. 

Executive Documents, State of Minnesota. These were used for the period 
of Sibley's governorship and for the question of railroads in Minnesota. 
Hodge, Frederick Webb, ed., Handbook of American Indians North of 
Mexico, a parts, Washington, Government Printing Office, 1910. 
Valuable regarding the Indians of Minnesota. 
Proceedings of the Constitutional Conventions, 1857. 

Debates and Proceedings of the Minnesota Constitutional Convention. 
Journal of the Constitutional Convention of the Territory of Minnesota. 
Each convention kept a record of its proceedings and these were 
published and are in the Library of the Minnesota Historical Society. 
Royce, Charles C. (Compiler), Indian Land Cessions in the United 
States. 1 8th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 
1896-97, Washington, D. C. 1898. . , , 

This gives an account of and maps showing all Indian land cessions. 
It is very valuable regarding treaties for cession of land. 
Senate Documents, 32 Congress, 1 Session, Vol. Ill, Doc. No. 29 Indian 
Papers regarding Ramsey's official conduct in disbursing the money 
under the Treaties of 1851 are found here. It gives the evidence in 
the transactions as brought out by the investigation. Since Sibley 
was connected with the making of the treaties as a representative of 
the fur company interests it is valuable for this study. 
Senate Documents, 1903-1904, Vol. 38. Kappler, Charles T., ed., 
Indian Affairs, Laws, Treaties. The title indicates its contents and 
value. 
United States, Statutes at Large. Volume VII contains all the treaties 
with Indian tribes to March 3, 1845, since when they are given in 
the volume for the year when the treaty was made. 
III. Newspapers , r c u 

Pioneer. (Also under the title Pioneer and Democrat and after beptember, 
1862, again under the title Pioneer.) Used for the period 1849- 
1865. This paper was Democratic in politics and was usually favor- 
able to Sibley. It is valuable for the attitude of the Sibley faction in 
territorial politics as well as for the general news of the time. James 
M. Goodhue was its founder and editor until his death. Joseph R. 
Brown was at one time its editor. 
Minnesota Chronicle and Register, 1 849-1 851. These were two Whig 
papers, both started in 1849, but consolidated in August, 1849. In 
1851 it was absorbed by the Democrat. These papers were favorable 



176 TRANSITION" OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

to Sibley while it was believed that he was a Whig, but were hostile to 
him when he announced himself as a Democrat. 
50 9335 Shortridge Diss. 337 9 on 10 R.D. 

Minnesota Democrat. This paper was founded in the interests of the 
Rice faction in the Democratic party. D. A. Robinson was the editor. 
It absorbed the Chronicle and Register in 1851 and was finally consoli- 
dated with the Pioneer and published as the Pioneer and Democrat. 
It was, of course, hostile to Sibley before 1853 and is valuable as a 
means of seeing Sibley as his enemies saw him. 

Minnesotian. This was a republican paper and was, therefore, hostile 
to Sibley, especially during the period of his governorship and during 
the campaign against the Sioux. 
IV. General and Miscellaneous Material. 

(Note: This consists of secondary material, magazine articles, pamphlets, 

articles in the Minnesota Historical Collections, &c. Much of it is 

reminiscent in character and should be used with caution. Other parts 

are partly reminiscent and partly secondary, and other articles are 

purely secondary material. Articles or books of especial merit will be 

briefly described.) 

Adams, Moses B., "The Sioux Outbreak in the Year 1862 with Notes of 
Missionary work Among the Sioux," in Minnesota Historical Collec- 
tions, 9:431-52. 

Ayers, Elizabeth T., "First Settlement on Red River of the North, 1 8 1 2," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 6:421-28. 

Baker, James Heaton, Lives of the Governors of Minnesota. St. Paul, 
1908. This book was published as volume III of the Minnesota 
Historical Collections and contains a good brief account of Sibley. 

Baker, James Heaton, "History of Transportation in Minnesota," in 
Minnesota Historical Collections, 6:1-34. 

Benedict, William A., and Tracy, Hiram A., History of the Town of 
Sutton, Massachusetts, from IJ04 to l8j6, Worcester, Massachusetts, 
1878. This book gives information regarding the Sibley family in 
Sutton together with the ancestry of the individuals of the family 
who settled in Sutton. 

Berghold, Alexander. The Indians^ Revenge; or Days of Horror. San 
Francisco, 1891. An account of the Sioux War; not particularly 
valuable. 

Bryant, Charles S., and Burch, Abel B., A History of the Great Massacre 
by the Sioux Indians in Minnesota. Cincinnati, 1864. This is a con- 
temporary and useful account of the war. Bryant prosecuted claims 
for several clients before the Commission to examine claims for 
damages done by the Indians. He was, therefore, in a good position 
to hear the facts. 

Bishop, Judson W., "History of the St. Paul and Sioux City Railroad, 
1864-1881," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:399-415. 

Blakely, Russel, "History of the Discovery of the Mississippi River and 
the Advent of Commerce in Minnesota," in Minnesota Historical 



BIBLIOGRAPHY I77 

Collections, 8:303-418. The author was a captain on a Mississippi 

river steamboat in the early days and that part of the article dealing 

with commerce has value. The other part is secondary material and 

not especially valuable. 
Boutwell, W. T., "Schoolcraft's Exploring Tour of 1832," in Minnesota 

Historical Collections, 1:121-140. 
Bromley, Edward A., "The Old Government Mills at the Falls of St. 

Anthony," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:635-643. 
Buell, Salmon A., "Judge Flandrau in the Defense of New Ulm, during 

the Sioux Outbreak of 1862," in Minnesota Historical Collections^ 

10:783. 
Chief Big Eagle, "Story of the Sioux Outbreak in 1862," in Minnnesota 

Historical Collections, Vol. VI. This story as told by a participant 

was taken down by Return I. Holcombe in an interview with the 

Indian chief. It has value as giving the Indian side of the story but 

should be used with caution. 
Chittenden, H. H., History of the Early Western Fur Trade, 3 Vols., 

New York, 1902. This is the best account of the fur trade as a whole 

but deals only slightly with the trade of the upper Mississippi. 
Coman, Katherine, Economic Beginnings of the Far West, 2 Vols., New 

York, 1 91 2. This has a good chapter on the fur trade but does not 

give much on the fur trade in Minnesota. 
Crooks, William, "The First Railroad in Minnesota," in Minnesota 

Historical Collections, 10:445-448. 
Cutter, William Richard, ed.. Genealogical and Family History of Eastern 

New York. New York, 1912. Volume II contains a genealogical 

record of the Sibley family. 
Daniels, Arthur M., A Journal of Sibley's Indian Expedition during the 

Summer of i86j and Record of the Troops Employed. Winona, Minn., 

1864. This is a source of the expedition. 
Daniels, Asa W., "Reminiscences of Little Crow," in Minnesota Histori- 
cal Collections, Vol. 12. 
Davis, Samuel M., "The Dual Origin of Minnesota," in Minnesota 

Historical Collections, 9:519-548. 
DeCamp, (Mrs.) J. E., "Sioux Outbreak in 1 862," in Minnesota Historical 

Collections, 6:354-380. 
Durant, Edward W., "Lumbering and Steamboating on the St. Croix 

River," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:645-675. 
Elfeld, Charles D., "Early Trade and Traders in St. Paul," in Minnesota 

Historical Collections, 9:163-168. 
Elaison, Adolph O., "The Beginning of Banking in Minnesota," in 

Minnesota Historical Collections, 12:671-679. A good account of 

early banking operations. 
Ellet, (Mrs.) Elizabeth Fries, Pioneer Women of the West. New York, 

1852. This book contains a sketch of Sibley's mother. Sibley did 

not believe that the account was adequate and wrote to the author 

that, while it was true as far as it went, he could not help but think 



lyS TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

that his mother would smile at it, if she could come back from the 
other world and read the sketch. 

Fairchild, Henry S., "Sketches of the Early History of Real Estate in 
St. Paul," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:417-443. 

Flandrau, Charles E., "Progress of Minnesota during the Half Century, 
1 849-1 899," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 9:587-596. 

Flandrau, Charles E., "Reminiscences of Minnesota during the Terri- 
torial Period," in Minnesota Historical Collections, g:igj-222. 

Folsom, William H. C, "History of Lumbering in the St. Croix Valley, 
with Biographical Sketches," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
9:291-324. 

Folwell, William Watts, Minnesota the North Star State. Boston, 1908. 
Dr. Folwell, a former President of the Univeristy of Minnesota, is the 
best authority on the history of Minnesota. 

Folwell, William Watts, "The Five Million Loan," in Minnesota His- 
torical Collections, 15:189-214. 

Folwell, William Watts, "The Sale of Fort Snelling, 1857," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 15:393-410. 

Gilfillan, Charles D., "The Early Political History of Minnesota," in 
Minnesota Historical Collections, 9:167-180. 

Gilfillan, John B., "History of the University of Minnesota," in Minne- 
sota Historical Collections, 12:43-84. 

Hall, H. P., Observations, being more or less a History of Political Contests 
in Minnesota, 184^-1^04. St. Paul, 1905. This book was written 
"to warn young men not to abandon regular and legitimate business 
for the purpose of securing a foothold in political life. I frankly state 
that all the truth has not been told, and it is better for history, for 
the living and the memory of the respected dead, that there should be 
some omissions." 

Hanson, Marcus L., Old Fort Snelling, i8ig-i8^8. Iowa City, Iowa, 
191 8. A very valuable account of an interesting subject. 

Heard, Isaac V. D., History of the Sioux War and Massacre of 1862 and 
i86j. New York, 1 863. The author was a member of Sibley's expedi- 
tion and was recorder of the Military Commission which tried the 
Indians who were accused of participating in the massacres. He had, 
therefore, a good opportunity to get the facts, but his conclusions from 
the facts are not always correct. 
Hildreth, S. P., Biographical and Historical Memoirs of the Early Pioneer 
Settlers of Ohio. Cincinnati, 1852. This contains sketches of the lives 
of some of the ancestors of Sibley on both his father's and mother's 
side, especially those who lived for a time at Marietta. 
Hill, James J., "History of Agriculture in Minnesota," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 8:275-290. This is a good account of early 
conditions by a man whose interest in transportation would qualify 
him to speak with authority on economic conditions. 
Holcombe, Return I., et. al., Minnesota in Three Centuries, 4 Vols. St. 
Paul, 1908. This is a co-operative work whose value depends upon 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 179 

the author of the particular volume in question. Volume II deals 
with the first part of the period covered in this biography and is not 
entirely reliable. 

Hughes, Thomas, "Causes and Results of the Inkpaduta Massacre," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 12:263-282. 

Hughes, Thomas, "The Treaty of Traverse des Sioux in 1851," in Min- 
nesota Historical Collections, lo-.ioi-iig. 

Johnson, Daniel S. B., "Minnesota Journalism in the Territorial Period," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:247-351. 

Jordan, John W., ed., Genealogical and Personal History of the Allegheny 
Valley, Pennsylvania. New York, 1913. Volume I, pages 308-321, 
gives a genealogical account of the Sibley family which seems to have 
been based quite largely on the first chapter in West's Sibley. 

Kiehle, David, "History of Education in Minnesota," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 10:353-398. A good account of the schools by a 
former State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

Kingsbury, David L., "Sully's Expedition against the Sioux," in Min- 
nesota Historical Collections, 8 -.44^-462. 

Larpenteur, August L., "Recollections of the City and People of St. 
Paul, 1 843-1 898," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 9:363-394. 
Mr. Larpenteur was one of the pioneers and lived in St. Paul until 
191 8. This is a good statement of facts by one who lived through all 
the stages of civilization from Indian frontier to the present time. 

LeDuc, William G., Minnesota Year Book, 1851-53. This contains 
statistical information, together with important facts not easily 
accessible elsewhere on conditions in early Minnesota. The author 
was one of the "old settlers" who lived through all stages of civilization 
in the history of the West. He died in 191 7. 

MacDonald, Colvin F., The Nations Response in 1862 to the Great Sioux 
Outbreak. The author took part in the expedition against the Sioux. 
He gives a rather complete account of the causes of the outbreak. In 
the Minneapolis Journal, February 18, 191 2, the author has an article 
to disprove Confederate influence as a cause for the outbreak. 

McClure, Nancy, "Captivity among the Sioux," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 6:438-460. 

McCourt, Robert Shepard, The History of the Old Sibley House. St. 
Paul, 1910. This is the official souvenir of the Sibley House gotten 
out by the Daughters of the American Revolution. It is illustrated 
and gives many interesting facts regarding the old Sibley house at 
Mendota. It also contains a sketch of Sibley's life and also sketches 
of the lives of his mother and wife. 
Mathews, Lois Kimball, The Expansion of New England. Boston, 1909. 
This is the best general account on the influence of the New England 
element in American History. It contains some reference to Solomon 
Sibley, the father of Henry Hastings Sibley. 
Minnesota in the Civil and Indian Wars. 2 Vols. St. Paul, 1893. This 
work was gotten out by a board of commissioners appointed under an 



l8o TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

act of the legislature, April 22, 1 892. Volume I is a secondary account 
of the part played by Minnesota's soldiers in the Civil War and in the 
expedition against the Sioux. Volume II contains the sources upon 
which I was based. It is a valuable work, especially volume II. 

Moran, Thomas F., "How Minnesota Became a State," in Minnesota 
Historical Collections, 8:148-184. 

Moss, Henry L., "Last Days of Wisconsin Territory and Early Days of 
Minnesota Territory," in Minnesota Historical Collections^ 8:67-88. 
Mr. Moss was one of the early lawyers in Minnesota and was the first 
United States Attorney for Minnesota Territory. He was in a position 
to know the facts, but this account was written many years after the 
events happened and, as the author himself says, without refreshing 
his memory by reference to documentary material. It seems to have 
been in the nature of an impromptu speech. Many mistakes of fact 
occur in it and it cannot be safely used except where it is checked with 
and is supported by other historical material 

Murray, William P., "Recollections of Early Territorial Days and Legis- 
lation," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 12:103-130. 

Neill, Edward Duffield. History of the Minnesota Valley. Minneapolis, 
1884. 

Neill, Edward Duffield, History of Minnesota. 1882. 

Neill, Edward Duffield, History of the Upper Mississippi Valley. i88i. 
The author was, in his day, the best authority on the history of Minne- 
sota. This work is valuable except where superceded by works based 
on later research. 

Patchin, Sydney A., "The Development of Banking in Minnesota," in 
Minnesota History Bulletin, 2:iii-i68. This is the best account of 
the subject and was accepted as a thesis at the University of Min- 
nesota. 

Potter, Theodore N., "Recollections of Minnesota Experience," in 
Minnesota History Bulletin, 1:419-521. 

Randall, John H., "The Beginning of Railroad Building in Minnesota," 
in Minnesota Historical Collections, 15:215-220. 

Relf, Frances H., "Removal of the Sioux Indians from Minnesota," in 
Minnesota History Bulletin, 2:420-425. This is a letter, written by 
J. S. Wilkinson, the Missionary, who accompanied the Sioux when 
they were removed from Minnesota following the uprising of 1862, 
together with editorial comment on it. 

Renville, Gabriel, "A Sioux Narrative of the Outbreak in 1862 and of 
Sibley's Expedition in 1863," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
10:595-618. Renville was a half-breed and acted as scout for Sibley 
in 1863. This account has value. 

Robinson, Edward Van Dyke, Economic History of Agriculture in 
Minnesota. Bulletin of the University of Minnesota, 191 5. This is a 
very valuable account of the economic developm.ent of an important 
industry and is the best thing in print on the subject. 



BIBLIOGRAPHY Ibl 

Rogers, George B., "History of Flour Manufacture in Minnesota," in 

Minnesota Historical Collections, 10:35-55. 
Saby, Rasmus S., "Railroad Legislature in Minnesota, 1849-1857," in 
Minnesota Historical Collections, 15:1-188. This is the best account of 
the subject during this period. 
Satterlee, Marion P., "Narratives of the Sioux War," in Minnesota 

Historical Collections, 15:349-370- 
Schwandt, Mary, "Captivity among the Sioux," in Minnesota Historical 

Collections, 6:461-474. 
Sibley, Henry Hastings, "Description of Minnesota" (1850), m 
Historical Collections, i :37-42. 

"History of the Minnesota State Railroad Bonds," Pamphlet No. 16 
in volume on "Five Million Loan," in library of the Minnesota 
Historical Society. 
"Memoir of Hercules L. Dausman," in Minnesota Historical Collec- 
tions, 3:192-200. 
"Memoir of Jean Baptiste Faribault," in Minnesota Historical Collec- 
tions, y.iG^-i-jg. 
"Memoir of Jean B. Nicollet," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 

1:183-195. 

"Memorial Tribute to Rev. Gideon H. Pond," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 3:364-366. 

"Reminiscences, Historical and Personal," in Minnesota Historical 
Collections, 1:457-485. 

"Reminiscences of the Early Days in Minnesota," in Minnesota His- 
torical Collections, 3:242-282. 

"Sketch of John Other Day," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
9:99-102. 

"Speech before the Committee on Elections of the United States House 
of Representatives, December 22, 1848," published in pamphlet 
form in Washington, 1 849. Also in Minnesota Historical Collections, 
1:69-75. 

"Address to the People of Minnesota Territory," published in pamph- 
let form, Washington, 1850. Also in West, Sibley, Appendix. 

"Address of H.H. Sibley,of Minnesota Territory to His Constituents," 
published in pamphlet form in Washington. Also in West, Sibley. 

"Inaugural Address, June 3, 1858," published in pamphlet form. 

"Annual Message, 1859," published in pamphlet form. All of these 
pamphlets are in the library of the Minnesota Historical Society. 
Simpson, Thomas, "The Early Government Land Surveys in Minnesota 

West of the Mississippi River," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 

10:157-167. 
Stevens, John H., Personal Recollections of Minnesota and Its People, 

and Early History of Minneapolis. Minneapolis, 1896. This is a 

valuable book by one of the "old settlers" and is particularly valuable 

in this study because the author, while a Whig, was a warm supporter 

of Sibley during the period of territorial politics. 



102 TRANSITION OF A TYPICAL FRONTIER 

Stevens, Wayne E., "Organization of the British Fur Trade," in Missis- 
sippi Valley Historical Review, 3:172-202. This throws light on the 
fur trade in the upper Mississippi country before the advent of Sibley 
to Minnesota. 

Sweet, George W., "Incidents of the Threatened Outbreak of Hole-in- 
the-Day and Other Ojibways, at the Time of the Sioux Massacre of 
1862," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 6:401-408. 

Texter, Lucy B., Official Relations between the United States and the Sioux 
Indians. Palo Alto, California, 1896. This is an accurate and unbiased 
account of the subject. 

West, Nathaniel, The Ancestry, Life, and Times of Henry Hastings 
Sibley. St. Paul, 1889. This book is good on the ancestry of Sibley 
and is valuable because the author had access to Sibley's manuscript 
autobiography, which seems to have been lost. Sibley read and ap- 
proved the work. The chief objection to it is the style and the fact 
that it idealizes Sibley and makes him appear more as a demi-god 
than a human being. 

Whipple, Benjamin. Lights and Shadows of a Long Episcopate. New 
York, 1902. 

White, Mrs. N. D., "Captivity among the Sioux, August 18 to Septem- 
ber 26, 1862," in Minnesota Historical Collections, 9:395-426. 

Williams, J. Fletcher. A History of St. Paul and of Ramsey County. 
St. Paul, 1876 This work is published as a separate volume in the 
Minnesota Historical Collections. 



INDEX 



American Board of Missions, 115. 

American Fur Company, 8, 9, 12; 
issue in politics, 72, 74; dis- 
credited, 78. 

Astor, John Jacob, 9, 12, 

Bailly, Alexis, 15, 16, 31. 

Borup, Charles W., 26; discredits 
Sibley, 78. 

Boyce, John, 28. 

Boyden, of North Carolina, opposes 
Minnesota Bill, 48. 

Brown, Joseph R., 15, 16, 27, 38; 
and "traders' paper" of 1851, 
115; at Stillwater Convention, 
40; supports Sibley, 65; supports 
Olmstead in 1850, 75. 

Brown, Orlando, Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs, loi, 107. 

Buchanan, James, opinion regarding 
Wisconsin Territory, 41. 

Burkleo, Samuel, at Stillwater Con- 
vention, 38. 

Cass, Lewis, 4, 46. 

Catlin, John, 29, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 

.46- 
Chicago, description of in 1830, 7. 

Chouteau & Co., 24, 26. 

Codification of laws for Minnesota, 
80. 

Compromise of 1850, 47. 

Constitutional Convention for Min- 
nesota, 1 27 et seq. 

Counties, organized in Minnesota, 
69, 123. 

Crooks, Ramsey, 9, 21; views as to 
Indian policy, 96. 

Dodge, Henry M., 42. 

Douglas, Stephan A,, introduces 
Minnesota bill, 52. 

Dousman, H. L., 9. 



Dubuque's lead mines, 13. 
Election of 1850 in Minnesota, 76. 
Falls of St. Anthony, 13. 
Faribault, Alexander, 15. 
Faribault, Jean B., 15. 
Five Million Dollar Loan, 132, 135- 

138. 
Free Soil Party, 47. 
Fort Snelling, 12. 
Fox-Wisconsin route, 13. 
Fur Company, transformation into 

business establishment, 23. 
Fur Trade, amount of in Minnesota, 

25; barter, 21; British control, 

12; prices of furs, 24. 
Fur Traders, 11. 
Fur Trading Posts in 1826, 13. 
Gaspee, 6. 
Gorman, W. A., appointed governor 

of Minnesota Territory, 121. 
Goodhue, James M., d';}^. 
Granger Movement, 169. 
Great Britain's Indian Policy, 94. 
Haskell, Joseph, 30. 
Holcombe, William, 38, 40. 
Hudson Bay Company, 31; use of 

liquor with Indians, 92. 
Indians, n, 21; contact of races, 91; 

decrease in numbers, 96; how 

they might be civilized, 98; 

policy of United States regarding, 

92; "traders' paper" of 1851, 114; 

treaties of 185 1, \o^ et seq. 
Indian Credits, 14. 
Indian Trade, 19-20, 23; in connec- 
tion with treaties, 1 10. 
Indian Traders, character of, 17; use 

of liquor, 91. 
Indian Treaty of 1837, 22, 27. 



183 



1 84 



INDEX 



Jones, George W., delegate from 
Michigan Territory, 42. 

Kittson, N. W., 15, 26. 

Laframboise, Joseph, 15. 

Lambert, David, 38. 

Land Claim Association, 32, 90. 

Land Office, at St. Croix, Wisconsin, 
43; moved to Stillwater, 59; 
established at Willow River, Wis- 
consin, 59. 

Lincoln, Abraham, vote on Minne- 
sota bill, 51. 

Little Crow, 152. 

Lumbering in Minnesota, 28, 29. 

Marietta, Ohio, 5. 

Marshall, William R., nominated for 
delegate, 126. 

Martin, Morgan L., introduces Min- 
nesota bill, 35. 

Mendota, 9. 

Michigan Territory, 4. 

Michigan, University of, 4. 

Military Reserve at Fort Snelling, 
88. 

Minnesota Bill, introduced, 52; de- 
bated, 53-57; passed, 58; ap- 
proved, 60. 

Minnesota Territory, election of 
1848, 45; organized, 38; territor- 
ial appointments for, 60; ad- 
mitted into Union, 131 ; effect of 
Panic of 1857 upon, 124; move- 
ment for statehood, 126 et seq; 
New England element in, 121 ; 
population of, 121-22. 
Minnesota, population in i860, 124- 
25; transformation from frontier 
to statehood, 171. 
Mitchell, A. M., and Rice Contract, 
106, appointed Marshall for Min- 
nesota, 60; candidate for delegate 
in 1850,71. 
Moss, H. L., appointed United 
States Attorney for Minnesota 
Territory, 60; at Stillwater Con- 
vention, 40. 



New England Element in Minne- 
sota, 121. 

New England Town, method of 
forming, 3. 

New Hope (Mendota), 12. 

Norris, James S., 30; views on 
Minnesota bill, 45. 

Northwest Fur Company, 16, 31. 

Ohio Company, 5. 

Ohio River Trade, 6. 

Olmstead, David, 73. 

Panic of 1857, eflFect on Minnesota, 
124. 

Parant, Peter, 32. 

Penitentiary, located at Stillwater, 
80. 

Pembina, 15, 31,33. 

Polk, James K., memorial to, 38; 
approves Minnesota bill, 60. 

Pond, Peter, 12. 

Pope, General John, in command 
during Sioux War, 151. 

Post Roads in Minnesota, 81, 82. 

Provencalle, Louis, 15. 

Puritan Emigration to Massachu- 
setts, 2. 

Railroads, agitation for in Minne- 
sota, 84; beginning of construc- 
tion, 139-140; Constitutional 
amendment for aid in building, 
134, 138; construction of, 169; 
land grants asked for, 132-34; 
effect of Panic of 1857 upon, 134; 
Pacific Railroad advocated in 
1850, 83; State Railroad Bonds, 
167 et seq. 
Ramsey, Alexander, appointed gov- 
ernor of Minnesota Territory, 60; 
attitude towards State Railroad 
Bonds, 144; candidate for governor 
in 1857, 129; investigation into 
conduct of regarding Sioux Trea- 
ties, 117; negotiation of Sioux 
Treaties, ill et seq. 
Red River Ox-carts, 23' 
Regulators on Iowa Frontier, 102. 



INDEX 



185 



Renville, Joseph, 15, 21, 30. 

Republican Party, beginning of in 
Minnesota, 125. 

Retail Trade, in connection with fur 
trade, 23, 25, 26. 

Retrospect, 171-73- 

Rice, Henry M., candidate for 
delegate in 1848, 42; contract for 
removal of Winnebagoes, 100 et 
seq.; faction in politics, 63; fac- 
tion gains strength, 77; intro- 
duces Minnesota bill, 127; moved 
to St. Paul, 65; organized Demo- 
cratic party in Minnesota, 66. 

Riggs, S. R., in relation to "traders' 
paper," 115. 

Rolette, Joseph, Sr., 9, 13. 

St. Anthony, 29. 

"St. Clair" built at Marietta, 6. 

St. Croix County, Wisconsin, census 
of 1840, 30. 

St. Paul, beginning of, 32. 

St. Peters River, 9. 

Selkirk, Lord, 31. 

Sibley, Henry Hastings, of pure New 
England stock, 2; early life, 7; 
comes to Mendota, 12; in lumber- 
ing industry, 28; justice of the 
peace, 34; candidate for delegate 
in 1848, 42; at Stillwater Con- 
vention, 38; elected delegate, 39; 
arrives in Washington, 47; ad- 
mitted to seat in Congress, 50; 
faction in politics, 63; elected 
delegate in 1849, ^^'1 announces 
politics, 68; candidate for dele- 
gate in 1850, 71; views on public 
land policy, 85; opposes bill for 
relief of indigent insane, 86; 
favors homestead bill, 86; 
views as to use of liquor in 
Indian trade, 92; views on Indian 
policy of government, 92-93; 
attempted to get enumeration of 
Indians, 96; explains how Indians 
might be civilized, 98; a squatter, 



89; opposes Rice Contract, 103 
et seq.; retires from Congress, 78; 
closed up connection with fur 
trade, 26; considered for territo- 
rial governor, 120; candidate for 
governor in 1857, 129; attitude 
towards Five Million Loan, 139; 
criticism of attitude towards 
Five Million Loan, 141; in Sioux 
War, 150 et seq.; close of military 
career, 164; in state legislature, 
166; regent of University of 
Minnesota, 165; later life, 165; 
death, 171. 

Sibley House, 9. 

Sibley, John, Mayor of St. Albans in 
England, 2. 

Sibley, John, comes to Massachu- 
setts, 2. 

Sibley, Jonathan, 3. 

Sibley,Joseph(I),2;(II),3. 

Sibley, Reuben, 3. 

Sibley, Solomon, 4. 

Sioux War of 1862, causes of, 146- 
49; beginnings of hostilities, 149 
expedition into Dakota, 162-64 
execution of Indians, 160-61 
women prisoners, 153-55- 

Slavery, condition of Indians com- 
pared with, 99. 

Sproat, Ebenezer, 5. 

Sproat, Sarah Whipple, 5. 

Squatters, 27, 32; on military reserve, 
88. 

Steele, Franklin, 28, 29. 

Stillwater Convention, 37, 38. 

Sutton, Massachusetts, 3. 

Swiss settlers from Pembina, 31. 

Taliaferro, Major, 13, 21. 

Taylor, Joshua L., 38. 

Taylor, Zachary, makes appoint- 
ments for Minnesota, 60. 

Telegraph line to Minnesota, 83. 

United States, Indian policy of, 92, 
93- 



*:S> 



INDEX 



n 



Woods, Major, expedition through Whipple, Bishop H. B., plea in 
Iowa, 1849, 102-103. behalf of Sioux Indians, 158-59. 

Walker, Orange, 29. Wilcox, N. Green, candidate for 

Wallace, James, note regarding Gas- delegate in 1850, 73. 

pee, 6. Wilkinson, M. S., 38. 

Wheat, first shipped from Minne- Wilson, James, of New Hampshire, 
sota, 124. presents Sibley's credentials, 47. 

Whipple, Abraham, 5. Wisconsin, boundaries of, 36. 



LbM 



r ^J 



Deacldified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing Agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: 




k 



SEP 



iBBKKEEPER 



^- PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGIES, LP. 

» I '-^ 111 Thomson Park Drive 

\l ■ j Cranberry Township, PA 16066 

( V "^^ (724)779-2111 



i 



